Dhhsstats

Child Maltreatment
2016
27
25 th
NG
YE
R
A
TI
OF R
R EPO
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

Administration for Children and Families
Administration on Children, Youth and
Families
Children’s Bureau
This report was prepared by the Children’s Bureau (Administration on Children, Youth and Families,
Administration for Children and Families) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Public Domain Notice

Material contained in this publication is in the public domain and may be reproduced, fully or partially, without
permission of the federal government.
Electronic Access
This report is available on the Children’s Bureau website at
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/child-maltreatment.
Questions and More Information

If you have questions or require additional information about this report, please contact the Child Welfare
Information Gateway at info@childwelfare.gov or 1–800–394–3366. If you have questions about a specific
state’s data or policies, contact information is provided for each state in Appendix D, State Commentary.
Data Sets
Restricted use files of the NCANDS data are archived at the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect
(NDACAN) at Cornell University. Researchers who are interested in these data for statistical analyses may
contact NDACAN by phone at 607–255–7799, by email at ndacan@cornell.edu, or on the Internet at
http://www.ndacan.cornell.edu. NDACAN serves as the repository for the NCANDS data sets, but is not the
author of the Child Maltreatment report.
Recommended Citation
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on
Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2018). Child maltreatment 2016. Available from
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/child-maltreatment.
Federal Contacts
Dori Sneddon, MSW Aronda Howard, PhD, MSW, LCSW
Office on Child Abuse and Neglect Office on Child Abuse and Neglect
Children’s Bureau/ACYF/ACF/HHS Children’s Bureau/ACYF/ACF/HHS
Mary E. Switzer Building, #3417C Mary E. Switzer Building
330 C Street SW 330 C Street SW
Washington, DC 20201 Washington, DC 20201
dori.sneddon@acf.hhs.gov aronda.howard@acf.hhs.gov
Child Maltreatment
2016
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

Administration on Children, Youth and Families
330 C Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20201
Letter from the Associate Commissioner:
Child Maltreatment 2016 is the 27th edition of the annual Child Maltreatment report series.
States provide the data for this report through the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data
System (NCANDS). NCANDS was established in 1988 as a voluntary national data collection
and analysis program to make available state child abuse and neglect information. Data have
been collected every year since 1991, and NCANDS now annually collects maltreatment data
from child protective services agencies in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Key findings in this report include:
■ The national estimate of children who received a child protective services investigation
response or alternative response increased 9.5 percent from 2012 (3,172,000) to 2016
(3,472,000).1
■ The number and rate of victims have fluctuated during the past 5 years. Comparing the
national rounded number of victims from 2012 (656,000) to the national estimate of victims
in 2016 (676,000) shows an increase of 3.0 percent.
■ Three-quarters (74.8%) of victims were neglected, 18.2 percent were physically abused, and
8.5 percent were sexually abused.

■ For 2016, a nationally estimated 1,750 children died of abuse and neglect at a rate of 2.36
per 100,000 children in the national population.

The Child Maltreatment report series is an important resource relied upon by thousands of
researchers, practitioners, and advocates throughout the world. The report is available from
our website at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/
child-maltreatment.
NCANDS would not be possible without the time, effort, and dedication of child welfare and
information technology staff working together on behalf of children and families. We gratefully
acknowledge the efforts of all involved to make resources like this report possible, and will
continue to do everything we can to promote the safety and well-being of our nation’s children.
Sincerely,
/s/
Jerry Milner
Associate Commissioner
Children’s Bureau
1 If fewer than 52 states reported a count, the national rate is used to compute a national estimate. If all 52 states
report, the count is rounded. From 2012 through 2015, 52 states reported data; for 2016, 51 states reported.
Child Maltreatment 2016 Letter ii

Acknowledgements
The Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF) strives to ensure the well-
being of our Nation’s children through many programs and activities. One such activity is the
National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) of the Children’s Bureau.
National and state statistics about child maltreatment are derived from the data collected by
child protective services agencies and reported to NCANDS. The data are analyzed, dissemi-
nated, and released in an annual report. Child Maltreatment 2016 marks the 27th edition of
this report. The administration hopes that the report continues to serve as a valuable resource
for policymakers, child welfare practitioners, researchers, and other concerned citizens.
The 2016 national statistics were based upon receiving case-level and aggregate data from the
50 states and the District of Columbia.
ACYF wishes to thank the many people who made this publication possible. The Children’s
Bureau has been fortunate to collaborate with informed and committed state personnel who
work hard to provide comprehensive data, which reflect the work of their agencies.
ACYF gratefully acknowledges the priorities that were set by state and local agencies to
submit these data to the Children’s Bureau, and thanks the caseworkers and supervisors who
contribute to and use their state’s information system. The time and effort dedicated by these
and other individuals are the foundation of this successful federal-state partnership.
Child Maltreatment 2016 Acknowledgements iii

Contents
Letter from the AssociAte commissioner ii
AcknowLedgements iii
summAry viii
chApter 1: Introduction 1
Background of NCANDS 1
Future Reporting to NCANDS 2
Annual Data Collection Process 2
NCANDS as a Resource 3
Structure of the Report 4
chApter 2: Reports 6
Screening 6
Investigations and Alternative Responses 7
Report Sources 8
CPS Response Time 9
CPS Workforce and Caseload 9
Exhibit and Table Notes 9
chApter 3: Children 15
Alternative Response 16
Unique and Duplicate Counts 17
Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response 17
Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response by Disposition 18
Number of Child Victims 18
Child Victim Demographics 19
Maltreatment Types 20
Risk Factors 21
Special Focus on Victims With Alcohol and Drug Abuse Risk Factors 22
Perpetrator Relationship 23
chApter 4: Fatalities 53
Number of Child Fatalities 53
Child Fatality Demographics 54
Maltreatment Types 56
Risk Factors 56
Prior CPS Contact 57
Child Maltreatment 2016 Contents iv

Chapter 5: Perpetrators 65
Number of Perpetrators 65
Perpetrator Demographics 65
Chapter 6: Services 77
Prevention Services 77
Postresponse Services 79
History of Receiving Services 80
Part C of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 80
appendix a: Required CAPTA Data Items 94
appendix B: Glossary 96
appendix C: State Characteristics 112
appendix d: State Commentary 120
Child Maltreatment 2016 Contents v

Exhibits
Exhibit S–1 Summary of Child Maltreatment Rates per 1,000 Children 2012–2016 xi
Exhibit S–2 Statistics at a Glance, 2016 xii
Exhibit 2–A Referral Rates, 2012–2016 7
Exhibit 2–B Report Disposition Rates, 2012–2016 7
Exhibit 2–C Report Sources, 2016 8
Exhibit 3–A Child Disposition Rates, 2012–2016 17
Exhibit 3–B Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response
by Disposition, 2016 18
Exhibit 3–C Child Victimization Rates, 2012–2016 19
Exhibit 3–D Victims by Age, 2016 19
Exhibit 4–A Child Fatality Rates per 100,000 Children, 2012–2016 54
Exhibit 4–B Child Fatalities by Age, 2016 55
Exhibit 4–C Child Fatalities by Sex, 2016 55
Exhibit 4–D Child Fatalities by Race and Ethnicity, 2016 55
Exhibit 4–E Maltreatment Types of Child Fatalities, 2016 56
Exhibit 4–F Child Fatalities With Selected Caregiver Risk Factors, 2016 56
Exhibit 4–G Child Fatalities by Number of Prior CPS Contacts, 2016 57
Exhibit 5–A Perpetrators by Age, 2016 65
Exhibit 5–B Perpetrators by Race and Ethnicity, 2016 66
Tables
Table 2–1 Screened-in and Screened-out Referrals, 2016 11
Table 2–2 Average Response Time in Hours, 2012–2016 12
Table 2–3 Child Protective Services Workforce, 2016 13
Table 2–4 Child Protective Services Caseload, 2016 14
Table 3–1 Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response, 2012–2016 28
Table 3–2 Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response
by Disposition, 2016 30
Table 3–3 Child Victims, 2012–2016 32
Table 3–4 First-Time Victims, 2012–2016 34
Table 3–5 Victims by Age, 2016 36
Table 3–6 Victims by Sex, 2016 40
Table 3–7 Victims by Race and Ethnicity, 2016 41
Table 3–8 Maltreatment Types of Victims, 2016 43
Table 3–9 Maltreatment Type Combinations, 2016 45
Table 3–10 Victims With an Alcohol Abuse Caregiver Risk Factor, 2014–2016 46
Table 3–11 Victims With a Drug Abuse Caregiver Risk Factor, 2014–2016 47
Table 3–12 Victims With Financial Problem Caregiver Risk Factor, 2016 48
Table 3–13 Victims With Inadequate Housing Caregiver Risk Factor, 2016 49
Table 3–14 Victims <1–11 Months With Alcohol Abuse Child Risk Factor, 2012–2016 50
Table 3–15 Victims <1–11 Months With Drug Abuse Child Risk Factor, 2012–2016 51
Table 3–16 Victims by Relationship to Their Perpetrators, 2016 52
Table 4–1 Child Fatalities by Submission Type, 2016 59
Table 4–2 Child Fatalities, 2012–2016 60
Table 4–3 Child Fatalities by Maltreatment Death Year, 2016 61
Table 4–4 Child Fatalities by Age, 2016 62
Table 4–5 Child Fatalities by Relationship to Their Perpetrators, 2016 62
Child Maltreatment 2016 Contents vi

Table 4–6 Child Fatalities Who Received Family Preservation Services
Within the Previous 5 Years, 2016 63
Table 4–7 Child Fatalities Who Were Reunited With Their Families
Within the Previous 5 Years, 2016 64
Table 5–1 Perpetrators, 2012–2016 69
Table 5–2 Perpetrators by Age, 2016 70
Table 5–3 Perpetrators by Sex, 2016 72
Table 5–4 Perpetrators by Race and Ethnicity, 2016 73
Table 5–5 Perpetrators by Relationship to Their Victims, 2016 75
Table 6–1 Children Who Received Prevention Services by Funding Source, 2016 84
Table 6–2 Children Who Received Postresponse Services, 2016 85
Table 6–3 Average Number of Days to Initiation of Services, 2016 86
Table 6–4 Children Who Received Foster Care Postresponse Services and Who
had a Removal Date On or After the Report Date, 2016 87
Table 6–5 Victims With Court Action, 2016 88
Table 6–6 Victims With Court-Appointed Representatives, 2016 89
Table 6–7 Victims Who Received Family Preservation Services Within
the Previous 5 Years, 2016 90
Table 6–8 Victims Who Were Reunited With Their Families Within the Previous
5 Years, 2016 91
Table 6–9 IDEA: Victims Who Were Eligible and Victims Who Were Referred
to Part C Agencies, 2016 92
Table C–1 Data Files Submitted, State Administrative Structure, and Level of Evidence, 2016 114
Table C–2 Child Population, 2012–2016 115
Table C–3 Child Population Demographics, 2016 116
Table C–4 Adult Population by Age Group, 2016 119
Child Maltreatment 2016 Contents vii

Summary
Overview
All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Territories have child abuse and neglect report-
ing laws that mandate certain professionals and institutions refer suspected maltreatment to a child
protective services (CPS) agency.
Each state has its own definitions of child abuse and neglect that are based on standards set by
federal law. Federal legislation provides a foundation for states by identifying a set of acts or behaviors
that define child abuse and neglect. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA),
(P.L. 100-294), as amended by the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111–320), retained the
existing definition of child abuse and neglect as, at a minimum:
Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death,
serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or an act or failure to
act, which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.
Most states recognize four major types of maltreatment: neglect, physical abuse, psychological
maltreatment, and sexual abuse. Although any of the forms of child maltreatment may be found
separately, they can occur in combination.
The following pages provide a summary of key information from this report. The information is
provided in a question-and-answer format as the Children’s Bureau is anticipating the most common
questions for each chapter of the report. Please refer to the individual chapters for detailed information
about each topic and the relevant data. Definitions of terms also are provided in Appendix B, Glossary.
What is the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System

(NCANDS)?
NCANDS is a federally sponsored effort that collects and analyzes annual data on child abuse and
neglect. The 1988 CAPTA amendments directed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
to establish a national data collection and analysis program. The data are collected and analyzed
by the Children’s Bureau in the Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Administration for
Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The data are submitted voluntarily by the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico. The first report from NCANDS was based on data for 1990. This report for federal fiscal
year (FFY) 2016 data is the 27th issuance of this annual publication. (See chapter 1.)
Child Maltreatment 2016 Summary viii
How are the data used?
NCANDS data are used for the Child Maltreatment report series. In addition, data collected by NCANDS
are a critical source of information for many publications, reports, and activities of the federal govern-
ment and other groups. For example, NCANDS data are used in the annual publication, Child Welfare
Outcomes: Report to Congress. More information about these reports and programs are available on
the Children’s Bureau website at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb. (See chapter 1.)
What data are collected?

Once an allegation (called a referral) of abuse and neglect is received by a CPS agency, it is either
screened in for a response by CPS or it is screened out. A screened-in referral is called a report. CPS
agencies respond to all reports. In most states, the majority of reports receive investigations, which
determines if a child was maltreated or is at-risk of maltreatment and establishes whether an interven-
tion is needed. Some reports receive alternative responses, which focus primarily upon the needs of
the family and do not determine if a child was maltreated or is at-risk of maltreatment.
NCANDS collects case-level data on all children who received a CPS agency response in the form of
an investigation response or an alternative response. Case-level data (meaning individual child record
data) include information about the characteristics of screened-in referrals (reports) of abuse and
neglect that are made to CPS agencies, the children involved, the types of maltreatment they suffered,
the dispositions of the CPS responses, the risk factors of the child and the caregivers, the services
that are provided, and the perpetrators. (See chapter 1.)
Where are the data available?

The Child Maltreatment reports are available on the Children’s Bureau website at
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/child-maltreatment. If you
have questions or require additional information about this report, please contact the Child
Welfare Information Gateway at info@childwelfare.gov or 1–800–394–3366. Restricted use files of
NCANDS data are archived at the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect (NDACAN) at
Cornell University. Researchers who are interested in using these data for statistical analyses may
contact NDACAN by phone at 607–255–7799 or by email at ndacan@cornell.edu. (See chapter 1.)
How many allegations of maltreatment were reported and received

an investigation response or alternative response?
During FFY 2016, CPS agencies received an estimated 4.1 million referrals involving approximately
7.4 million children. Among the 45 states that reported both screened-in and screened-out referrals,
58.0 percent of referrals were screened in and 42.0 percent were screened out. For FFY 2016, 2.3
million referrals were screened in for a CPS response and received a disposition. The national rate of
screened-in referrals (reports) was 31.3 per 1,000 children in the national population. (See chapter 2.)
Who reported child maltreatment?

For 2016, professionals submitted (64.9%) of reports alleging child abuse and neglect. The term pro-
fessional means that the person had contact with the alleged child maltreatment victim as part of his
or her job. This term includes teachers, police officers, lawyers, and social services staff. The highest
percentages of reports were from education personnel (18.9%), legal and law enforcement personnel
(18.4%), and social services personnel (11.2%).
Child Maltreatment 2016 Summary ix

Nonprofessionals—including friends, neighbors, and relatives—submitted one-fifth of reports (18.1%).
Unclassified sources submitted the remaining reports (17.0%). Unclassified includes anonymous,
“other,” and unknown report sources. States use the code “other” for any report source that does not
have an NCANDS designated code. See Appendix D, State Commentary, for additional information
provided by the states as to what is included in “other.” (See chapter 2.)
Who were the child victims?

Fifty-one states submitted data to NCANDS about the dispositions of children who received one or
more CPS responses. For FFY 2016, approximately 3.5 million children were the subjects of at least
one report. A total of 17.2 percent of children were classified as victims with dispositions of substanti-
ated (16.5%) and indicated (0.7%). The remaining children were determined to be nonvictims of
maltreatment (82.8%). For FFY 2016, there were a nationally estimated 676,000 victims of child abuse
and neglect. The victim rate was 9.1 victims per 1,000 children in the population. (See chapter 3.)
Victim demographics include:
■ Children in their first year of life had the highest rate of victimization at 24.8 per 1,000 children of the
same age in the national population.
■ American-Indian or Alaska Native children had the highest rate of victimization at 14.2 per 1,000
children in the population of the same race or ethnicity; and African-American children had the
second highest rate at 13.9 per 1,000 children of the same race or ethnicity.
■ For all victims younger than 1 year, percentages of victims with the alcohol abuse child risk factor
increased from 3.1 in 2012 to 4.8 in 2016. The rates per 1,000 children of the same age increased
from 0.7 to 1.2, respectively.
■ For all victims younger than 1 year, percentages of victims with the drug abuse child risk factor
increased from 12.3 percent in 2012 to 15.2 percent in 2016. The rates per 1,000 children of the
same age increased from 2.6 to 3.9, respectively.
What were the most common types of maltreatment?

As in prior years, the greatest percentages of children suffered from neglect (74.8%) and physical
abuse (18.2%). A child may have suffered from multiple forms of maltreatment. A victim who suffered
more than one type of maltreatment was counted only once per type. (See chapter 3.)
How many children died from abuse or neglect?

Child fatalities are the most tragic consequence of maltreatment. For FFY 2016, 49 states reported
1,700 fatalities. Based on these data, a nationally estimated 1,750 children died from abuse and
neglect. (See chapter 4.) The analyses of case-level fatality data show:
■ The national rate of child fatalities was 2.36 deaths per 100,000 children.
■ Seventy percent of all child fatalities were younger than 3 years old.
■ Boys had a higher child fatality rate than girls at 2.87 boys per 100,000 boys in the population. Girls
had a child fatality rate of 2.11 per 100,000 girls in the population.
■ The rate of African-American child fatalities (4.65 per 100,000 African-American children) is 2.2
times greater than the rate of White children (2.08 per 100,000 White children) and nearly 3 times
greater than the rate of Hispanic children (1.58 per 100,000 Hispanic children).
■ More than three quarters (78.0%) of child fatalities involved at least one parent.
Child Maltreatment 2016 Summary x

Who abused and neglected children?
A perpetrator is the person who is responsible for the abuse or neglect of a child. Fifty states reported
518,136 perpetrators. (See chapter 5.) The analyses of case-level data show:
■ More than four-fifths (83.4%) of perpetrators were between the ages of 18 and 44 years.
■ More than one-half (53.7%) of perpetrators were women, 45.3 percent of perpetrators were men,
and 1.0 percent were of unknown sex.
■ The three largest percentages of perpetrators were White (49.8), African-American (20.0%), or
Hispanic (18.8%).
Who received services?

CPS agencies provide services to children and their families, both in their homes and in foster care.
Reasons for providing services may include 1) preventing future instances of child maltreatment and 2)
remedying conditions that brought the children and their family to the attention of the agency.
(See chapter 6.) During 2016:
■ Forty-five states reported approximately 1.9 million children received prevention services.
■ Approximately 1.3 million children received postresponse services from a CPS agency.
■ Two-thirds (60.6%) of victims and one-third (29.7%) of nonvictims received postresponse services.
A summary of national rates per 1,000 children is provided below and a one-page chart of key statis-
tics from the annual report is provided on the following page.
Exhibit S–1 Summary of Child Maltreatment Rates per 1,000 Children, 2012–2016
Child Maltreatment 2016 Summary xi

Exhibit S–2 Statistics at a Glance, 2016
4.1 million* REFERRALS

alleging maltreatment to CPS involving
7.4 million CHILDREN*1
Referrals
58.0% referrals SCREENED IN2

(become reports) 42.0% referrals SCREENED OUT
Reports
Submitted by
2.3 million REPORTS* 65% professionals
received a disposition (finding) 18% nonprofessionals
17% unclassified
3.5 million CHILDREN* received

either an investigation or alternative response
Children
676,000 VICTIMS* 2,824,000 NONVICTIMS*3

Includes 1,750 Fatalities*
388,130 VICTIMS 929,079 NONVICTIMS

received postresponse services received postresponse services
Services
143,866 VICTIMS 59,716 NONVICTIMS

received foster care services received foster care services
* Indicates a nationally estimated number. Please refer to the relevant chapter notes for information about thresholds, exclusions, and how the estimates
were calculated.
1 The average number of children included in a referral was 1.80.
2 For the states that reported both screened-in and screened-out referrals.
3 The estimated number of unique nonvictims was calculated by subtracting the unique count of estimated victims from the unique count of estimated children.
Child Maltreatment 2016 Summary xii

Introduction
CHAPTER 1
Child abuse and neglect is one of the Nation’s most serious concerns. This important issue is
addressed in many ways by the Children’s Bureau in the Administration on Children, Youth and
Families, the Administration for Children and Families within the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS). The Children’s Bureau strives to ensure the safety, permanency, and well-
being of all children by working with state, tribal, and local agencies to develop programs to prevent
child abuse and neglect. The Children’s Bureau awards funds to states and tribes on a formula basis
and to individual organizations that successfully apply for discretionary funds.
Child Maltreatment 2016 presents national data about child abuse and neglect known to child protec-
tive services (CPS) agencies in the United States during federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016. The data
were collected and analyzed through the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS),
which is an initiative of the Children’s Bureau. Because NCANDS contains all screened-in referrals
to CPS agencies that received a disposition and those that received an alternative response, these data
represent the universe of known child maltreatment cases for FFY 2016.
Background of NCANDS
The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) was amended in 1988 to direct the
Secretary of HHS to establish a national data collection and analysis program, which would make
available state child abuse and neglect reporting information.1 HHS responded by establishing
NCANDS as a voluntary national reporting system. During 1992, HHS produced its first NCANDS
report based on data from 1990. The Child Maltreatment report series evolved from that initial report
and is now in its 27th edition. During 1996, CAPTA was amended to require all states that receive
funds from the Basic State Grant program to work with the Secretary of HHS to provide specific data,
to the maximum extent practicable, about children who had been maltreated. These data elements
were incorporated into NCANDS. Subsequent CAPTA amendments added data elements, many
of which were included in the annual NCANDS data collection. Readers are encouraged to review
appendix A for the list of required CAPTA data items.
A successful federal-state partnership is the core component of NCANDS. Each state designates one
person to be the NCANDS state contact. The NCANDS state contacts from all 52 states work with the
Children’s Bureau and the NCANDS Technical Team to uphold the high-quality standards associated
with NCANDS data. Webinars, technical bulletins, virtual meetings, email, listserv discussions,
and phone conferences are used regularly to facilitate information sharing and provision of technical
assistance.
1 Child Abuse Prevention, Adoption and Family Services Act of 1988, (P.L. 100-294)
Child Maltreatment 2016 chApter 1: Introduction 1

NCANDS was created with the objective to collect nationally standardized case-level and aggregate
data and to make these data useful for policy decision-makers, child welfare researchers, and practitio-
ners. NCANDS developed a general data standardization (mapping) procedure whereby all states could
systematically define the rules for extracting the data from the state child welfare information system
into the standard NCANDS data format. NCANDS Technical Team members provide one-on-one
technical assistance to states to assist with data mapping, construction, extraction, and data submission
and validation.
Future Reporting to NCANDS

Two laws were enacted that will affect the future reporting requirements of NCANDS. The Justice
for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 (P.L. 114–22) includes a CAPTA amendment that requires
each state to report, to the maximum extent practicable, the number of children determined to be
victims of sex trafficking. The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 (CARA) (P.L.
114–198) includes a CAPTA amendment that requires states to report, to the maximum extent
practicable, the number of infants identified by healthcare providers as being affected by substance
abuse or withdrawal symptoms resulting from prenatal drug exposure, or a Fetal Alcohol Spectrum
Disorder; the number of substance exposed infants with safe care plans; and the number of infants
for whom service referrals were made, including services for the affected parent or caregiver. These
new requirements will be added to NCANDS, and the NCANDS Technical Team will disseminate
guidance from the Children’s Bureau and work with the states to implement new fields and codes.
NCANDS is subject to the Office of Management and Budget approval process to renew existing
data elements and to add new ones. This process occurs every 3 years. It is anticipated that states will
begin reporting data for both new laws with their FFY 2018 submissions.
Annual Data Collection Process

The NCANDS reporting year is based on the FFY calendar, which for Child Maltreatment 2016
was October 1, 2015, through September 30, 2016. States submit case-level data by constructing an
electronic file of child-specific records for each report of alleged child abuse and neglect that received
a CPS response. Each state’s file only includes completed reports that resulted in a disposition (or
finding) as an outcome of the CPS response during the reporting year. The data submission contain-
ing these case-level data is called the Child File.
The Child File is supplemented by agency-level aggregate statistics in a separate data submission
called the Agency File. The Agency File contains data that are not reportable at the child-specific
level and are often gathered from agencies external to CPS (e.g., vital statistics departments, child
death review teams, law enforcement agencies, etc). States are asked to submit both the Child File
and the Agency File each year. For more information about the Child File and Agency File please
go to the Children’s Bureau website at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/research-data-technology/
reporting-systems/ncands.
Upon receipt of data from each state, a technical validation review is conducted to assess the internal
consistency of the data and to identify probable causes for missing data. In some instances, the
reviews concluded that corrections were necessary, and the state was requested to resubmit its data.
(See appendix C for additional information about data submissions and appendix D for information
from states about their submissions.)
For FFY 2016, 51 states submitted both a Child File and an Agency File (unless otherwise noted, the
term “states” includes the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico). Puerto Rico

was not able to report a valid data submission in time for the analyses to be included in the
Child Maltreatment 2016 report. If the state is able to report a valid FFY 2016 submission, the data
will be included in trend analyses in future Child Maltreatment reports. The most recent data submis-
sions or resubmissions from states are included in trend tables. This may account for some differences
in the counts from previously released reports.
With each Child Maltreatment report, the most recent population data from the U.S. Census Bureau
are used to update all data years in each trend table. Wherever possible, trend tables encompass 5
years of data.2 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of the 51 states that submitted
FFY 2016 data accounts for more than 73 million children, which is 99.1 percent of the total child
population. (See table C–2).
As part of the NCANDS annual data collection process, states are asked to verify that their data
are sufficiently encrypted. However, some states are not able to verify that the data meet encryp-
tion guidelines. To protect confidentiality and enable all states’ data are available to researchers, a
double-encryption process was added to the data collection to systematically de-identify the unique
identifiers associated with the report, child, perpetrator, worker, and supervisor. This process ensures
the data security and that researchers can conduct analyses across years.
NCANDS as a Resource
The NCANDS data are a critical source of information for many publications, reports, and activi-
ties of the federal government, child welfare personnel, researchers, and others. Some examples of
programs and reports that use NCANDS data are discussed below. More information about these
reports and programs are available on the Children’s Bureau website at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb.
■ Child Welfare Outcomes: Report to Congress—This annual report presents information on

state and national performance in seven outcome categories. Data for the original Child Welfare
Outcomes measures and the majority of the context data in this report come from NCANDS
and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS). The reports are
available on the Children’s Bureau’s website at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/research- data-
technology/statistics-research/cwo.
■ Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs)—The Children’s Bureau conducts periodic reviews
of state child welfare systems to ensure conformity with federal requirements, determine what
is happening with children and families who are engaged in child welfare services, and assist
states with helping children and families achieve positive outcomes. States develop Program
Improvement Plans to address areas revealed by the CFSR as in need of improvement. For CFSR
Round 3, NCANDS data are the basis for two of the CFSR national data indicators: Recurrence
of Maltreatment and Maltreatment in Foster Care. NCANDS data also are used as data quality
checks.
2 U.S. Census Bureau, Population division. (2017). SC-EST2016-ALLDATA6: Annual State Resident Population Estimates
for 6 Race Groups (5 Race Alone Groups and Two or More Races) by Age, Sex, and Hispanic Origin: April 1, 2010 to
July 1, 2016 [data file]. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2016/demo/popest/state-detail.html
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. (2017). Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Single Year of Age and
Sex for the Puerto Rico Commonwealth: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2016 [data file]. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/popest/detail-puerto-rico.html

■ The NCANDS data also are used for several performance measures published annually as part of
the ACF Annual Budget Request to Congress, which highlights certain key performance measures
in compliance with the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act (GPRAMA,
2010). Specific measures on which ACF reports using NCANDS data include:
• Decrease the rate of first-time victims per 1,000 children in the population.
• Decrease the percentage of children with substantiated or indicated reports of maltreatment who
have a repeated substantiated or indicated report of maltreatment within six months.

• Improve states’ average response time between maltreatment report and investigation, based on
the median of states’ reported average response time in hours from screened-in reports to the
initiation of the investigation.
The National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect (NDACAN) was established by the
Children’s Bureau to encourage scholars to use existing child maltreatment data in their research.
NDACAN acquires data sets from national data collection efforts and from individual research-
ers, prepares the data and documentation for secondary analysis, and disseminates the data sets to
qualified researchers who have applied to use the data. NDACAN houses the NCANDS’s Child Files
and Agency Files and licenses researchers to use the data sets. The NCANDS data files are double-
encrypted prior to submission to NDACAN, which ensures that all submitted data are encrypted and
will be available to researchers and other federal agencies. Please note that NDACAN serves as the
repository for the NCANDS data sets, but is not the author of the Child Maltreatment report series.
More information is available at http://www.ndacan.cornell.edu.
In addition, NCANDS data are provided to other agencies as part of federal initiatives, including
Healthy People 2020 https://www.healthypeople.gov and America’s Children: Key National Indicators
of Well-Being https://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren.
Structure of the Report

Many tables include 5 years of data to facilitate trend analyses. To accommodate the space needed
to display the child maltreatment data, population data (when applicable) may not appear with the
table and are available in appendix C. Tables with multiple categories or years of data have numbers
presented separately from percentages or rates to make it easier to compare numbers, percentages, or
rates across columns or rows.
By making changes designed to improve the functionality and practicality of the report each year, the
Children’s Bureau endeavors to increase readers’ comprehension and knowledge about child maltreat-
ment. Feedback regarding changes made this year, suggestions for potential future changes, or other
comments related to the Child Maltreatment report are encouraged. Feedback may be provided to
the Children’s Bureau’s Child Welfare Information Gateway at info@childwelfare.gov. The Child
Maltreatment 2016 report contains the additional chapters listed below. Most data tables and notes
discussing methodology are located at the end of each chapter:
■ Chapter 2, Reports—referrals and reports of child maltreatment

■ Chapter 3, Children—characteristics of victims and nonvictims
■ Chapter 4, Fatalities—fatalities that occurred as a result of maltreatment
■ Chapter 5, Perpetrators—perpetrators of maltreatment
■ Chapter 6, Services—services to prevent maltreatment and to assist children and families

The following resources also are included in this report:
■ Appendix A, Required CAPTA Data Items—the list of data items from CAPTA that states
submit to NCANDS
■ Appendix B, Glossary—common terms and acronyms used in NCANDS and their definitions
■ Appendix C, State Characteristics—child and adult population data and information about states
administrative structures, levels of evidence, and data files collected

■ Appendix D, State Commentary—information about state policies, procedures, and legislation
that may affect data
Readers are urged to use state commentaries as a resource for additional context to the chapters’ text
and data tables. Appendix D also includes phone and email information for each NCANDS state
contact person. Readers who would like additional information about specific policies or practices are
encouraged to contact the respective states.

Reports
CHAPTER 2
This chapter presents statistics about referrals alleging child abuse and neglect and how child protec-
tive services (CPS) agencies respond to those allegations. Most CPS agencies use a two-step process
to respond to allegations of child maltreatment: (1) screening and (2) investigation and alternative
response. A CPS agency receives an initial notification—called a referral—alleging child maltreat-
ment. A referral may involve more than one child. Agency hotline or intake units conduct the screen-
ing response to determine whether a referral is appropriate for further action.
Screening
A referral may be either screened in or screened out. Referrals that meet CPS agency criteria are
screened in (and called reports) and receive an investigation or alternative response from the agency.
Referrals that do not meet agency criteria are screened out or diverted from CPS to other community
agencies. Reasons for screening out a referral vary by state policy, but may include one or more of the
following:
■ did not concern child abuse and neglect

■ did not contain enough information for a CPS response to occur
■ response by another agency was deemed more appropriate
■ children in the referral were the responsibility of another agency or jurisdiction (e.g., military
installation or tribe)
■ children in the referral were older than 18 years
During FFY 2016, CPS agencies across the nation received an estimated 4.1 million referrals, a 14.7
percent increase since 2012. The national estimate of 4.1 million referrals, including approximately
7.4 million children, was based on a national referral rate of 55.1 referrals per 1,000 children in the
population. (See exhibit 2–A and related notes.)
For FFY 2016, 45 states reported both screened-in and screened-out referral data. (See table 2–1
and related notes.) Those states screened in 58.0 percent and screened out 42.0 percent of referrals.
Seventeen states screened in more than the national percentage with screen-in percentages ranging
from 58.1 to 98.1 percent. Readers are encouraged to view state comments in appendix D for addi-
tional information about states’ screening policies.
Child Maltreatment 2016 chApter 2: Reports 6

Exhibit 2–A Referral Rates, 2012–2016
Child Population of Screened-In Screened-Out Total Referrals Rate Child Population National Estimate
Year Reporting States Reporting States Referrals (Reports) Referrals Total Referrals per 1,000 Children of all 52 States of Total Referrals
2012 44 58,854,809 1,693,623 1,123,550 2,817,173 47.9 74,542,811 3,571,000
2013 44 58,813,542 1,703,648 1,179,468 2,883,116 49.0 74,383,731 3,645,000
2014 44 58,883,271 1,766,787 1,228,602 2,995,389 50.9 74,346,098 3,784,000
2015 44 58,990,234 1,826,820 1,310,716 3,137,536 53.2 74,349,174 3,955,000
2016 45 59,401,029 1,897,196 1,374,053 3,271,249 55.1 74,338,157 4,096,000
Screened-out referral data are from the Agency File and screened-in referral data are from the Child File. This table includes only those states that reported both
screened-in and screened-out referrals. States that reported 100.0 percent of referrals as screened in were excluded.
The national referral rate was calculated for each year by dividing the number of total referrals from reporting states by the child population in reporting states. The
result was multiplied by 1,000. The national estimate of total referrals was based upon the rate of referrals multiplied by the national population of all 52 states. The
result was divided by 1,000 and rounded to the nearest 1,000. The national estimate of 7.4 million children included in referrals is explained in the notes for table 2–1.
The percent change was calculated using the national estimates for FFY 2012 and FFY 2016. The percent change was calculated by subtracting 2012 data from 2016
data, dividing the result by 2012 data, and multiplying by 100.
Investigations and Alternative Responses

Screened-in referrals are called reports and may include more than one child. In most states, the
majority of reports receive an investigation. This response includes assessing the allegation of
maltreatment according to state law and policy. The primary purpose of the investigation is twofold:
(1) to determine whether the child was maltreated or is at-risk of being maltreated and (2) to deter-
mine if services are needed and which services to provide. The primary purpose of the alternative
response is to focus on the service needs of the family. See chapter 3 for more information about
alternative response.
In some states, reports (screened-in referrals) may receive an alternative response. This response
is usually reserved for instances where the child is at a low or moderate risk of maltreatment. The
primary purpose of the alternative response is to focus on the service needs of the family. See chapter
3 for more information about alternative response.
In the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS), both investigations and alternative
responses receive a CPS finding known as a disposition. Nationally for FFY 2016, an estimated
2.3 million reports (screened-in referrals) received dispositions. This is a 10.7 percent increase from
the 2012 national rounded number of 2.1 million reports that received dispositions. (See exhibit 2–B
and related notes.)
Exhibit 2–B Report Disposition Rates, 2012–2016

National Estimate/
Reports with a National Disposition Rounded Number
Child Population of Disposition from Rate per 1,000 Child Population of all of Reports with a
Year Reporting States Reporting States Reporting States Children 52 States Disposition
2012 52 74,542,811 2,103,428 28.2 74,542,811 2,103,000
2013 52 74,383,731 2,102,660 28.3 74,383,731 2,103,000
2014 52 74,346,098 2,163,463 29.1 74,346,098 2,163,000
2015 52 74,349,174 2,237,763 30.1 74,349,174 2,238,000
2016 51 73,642,285 2,306,777 31.3 74,338,157 2,327,000
Data are from the Child File. The national disposition rate was calculated by dividing the number of reports with a disposition from reporting
states by the child population of reporting states. The result was multiplied by 1,000.
If 52 states reported data in a given year, the national number of reports with a disposition is the number of reports with a disposition rounded
to the nearest 1,000. If fewer than 52 states reported data in a given year, the national number of reports with a disposition was calculated
by multiplying the national disposition rate by the child population of all 52 states and dividing by 1,000 and rounding to the nearest 1,000.
The percent change was calculated using the national estimate/rounded number for FFY 2012 and FFY 2016. The percent change was
calculated by subtracting 2012 data from 2016 data, dividing the result by 2012 data, and multiplying by 100.

Report Sources
A report source is defined as the role of the person who notified a CPS agency of the alleged child
abuse and neglect in a referral. Only those sources in reports (screened-in referrals) that received an
investigation or alternative response are submitted to NCANDS. To facilitate comparisons, report
sources are grouped into three categories: professional, nonprofessional, and unclassified.
Professional report sources are persons who encountered the child as part of their occupation, such as
child daycare providers, educators, legal and law enforcement personnel, and medical personnel. State
laws require most professionals to notify CPS agencies of suspected maltreatment (these are known
as mandated reporters). Nonprofessional report sources are persons who did not have a relationship
with the child based on their occupation, such as friends, relatives, and neighbors. State laws vary as
to whether nonprofessionals are required to report suspected abuse and neglect. Unclassified includes
anonymous, “other,” and unknown report sources. States use the code of “other” for any report source
that does not have an NCANDS designated code. According to comments provided by the states, the
“other” report source category might include such sources as religious leader, Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families staff, landlord, tribal official or member, camp counselor, and private agency staff.
Readers are encouraged to review appendix D for additional information as to what is included in the
category of “other” report source.
For FFY 2016, professionals submitted 64.9 percent of reports. The highest percentages of reports
came from education personnel (18.9%), legal and law enforcement personnel (18.4%), and social
services personnel (11.2%). (See exhibit 2–C and related notes.) Nonprofessionals submitted approxi-
mately one-fifth of reports (18.1%) and included other relatives (6.8%), parents (6.6%), and friends and
neighbors (4.2%). Unclassified sources submitted the remaining reports (17.0%).
Exhibit 2–C Report Sources, 2016

Professionals submitted the majority of screened-in referrals (reports) that received
an investigation or alternative response
Data are from the Child File. Based on data from 49 states. States were excluded from this analysis if more than 25.0 percent had an unknown
report source. Numbers total to more than 100.0 percent due to rounding. Supporting data not shown.

CPS Response Time
States’ policies usually establish time guidelines or requirements for initiating a CPS response to a
report. The response time is defined as the time from the CPS agency’s receipt of a referral to the ini-
tial face-to-face contact with the alleged victim wherever this is appropriate, or with another person
who can provide information on the allegation(s). States have either a single response timeframe for
all reports or different timeframes for different types of reports. High-priority responses are often
stipulated to occur within 24 hours; lower priority responses may occur within several days.
Based on data from 39 states, the FFY 2016 average response time was 72 hours or 3.0 days; the
median response time was 64 hours or 2.7 days. (See table 2–2 and related notes, see appendix D for
more information about state reporting.) The response time data have fluctuated during the past 5
years, due in part to the number of states that submitted data for each year. In addition, some states
made improvements to state systems that enabled a more accurate calculation of response time.
CPS Workforce and Caseload

Given the large number and the complexity of CPS responses that are conducted each year, there is
ongoing interest in the size of the workforce that performs CPS functions. In most agencies, dif-
ferent groups of workers conduct screening, investigations, and alternative responses. However, in
some agencies, one worker may perform all or any combination of those functions and may provide
additional services. Due to limitations in states’ information systems and the fact that workers may
conduct more than one function in a CPS agency, the data in the workforce and caseload tables
vary among the states. Some states may report authorized positions while other states may report a
“snapshot” (the actual number of workers on a given day). The Children’s Bureau has provided guid-
ance to the states to submit data for workers as full-time equivalents when possible and will continue
to provide states with technical assistance.
For FFY 2016, 40 states reported a total workforce of 32,710. Thirty-six states reported 2,836 special-
ized intake and screening workers. The number of investigation and alternative response workers was
computed by subtracting the reported number of intake and screening workers from the reported total
workforce number. (See table 2–3 and related notes.)
Using the data from the same 36 states that reported on workers with specialized functions, investiga-
tion and alternative response workers completed an average of 72 CPS responses per worker for FFY
2016. As CPS agencies realign their workforce to improve the multiple types of CPS responses they
provide, the methodologies for estimating caseloads may become more complex. (See table 2–4 and
related notes.)
Exhibit and Table Notes

The following pages contain the data tables referenced in chapter 2. Specific information about state
submissions can be found in appendix D. Additional information regarding the exhibits and tables is
provided below.
General
■ During data analyses, thresholds are set to ensure data quality is balanced with the need to report
data from as many states as possible. States may be excluded from an analysis for data quality issues.
Exclusion rules are listed in the table notes below.
■ Rates are per 1,000 children in the population.

■ NCANDS uses the child population estimates that are released annually by the U.S. Census Bureau.
These population estimates are provided in appendix C.
■ National totals and calculations appear in a single row labeled National instead of separate rows
labeled total, rate, or percent.
■ The row labeled Reporting States displays the count of states that provided data for that analysis.
Table 2–1 Screened-In and Screened-Out Referrals, 2016

■ Screened-out referral data are from the Agency File, and screened-in referral data are from the
Child File.
■ This table includes screened-in referral data from all states and screened-out referral data from
45 reporting states.
■ The national referral rate was based on the number of total referrals divided by the child popula-
tion (see table C–2) of states that reported both screened-in and screened-out referrals. The result
was multiplied by 1,000.
■ The national estimate of total referrals was based on the rate of referrals multiplied by the national
child population of all 52 states. The result was divided by 1,000 and rounded to the nearest 1,000.
■ The national estimate of children included in referrals was calculated by multiplying the average
number of children included in a screened-in referral (see next bullet) by the number of estimated
referrals (see exhibit 2–A). The result was rounded to the nearest 1,000.
■ For FFY 2016, the average number of children included in a referral was 1.80. The average number
of children included in a referral was calculated by dividing the number of duplicate children who
received a disposition (see table 3–2) by the number of reports with a disposition (see exhibit 2–B).
Table 2–2 Average Response Time in Hours, 2012–2016

■ Data are from the Agency File.
■ The national average response time was calculated by summing the response times from the states
and dividing the total by the number of states reporting. The result was rounded to the nearest
whole number.
■ The national median was calculated by sorting the values and finding the middle point.
Table 2–3 Child Protective Services Workforce, 2016

■ Some states provided the total number of CPS workers, but not the specifics on worker functions as
classified by NCANDS.
■ States were excluded if the worker data were not submitted as full-time equivalent.
Table 2–4 Child Protective Services Caseload, 2016

■ Data are from the Child File and the Agency File.
■ The number of completed reports per investigation and alternative response worker was based on
the number of completed reports, divided by the number of investigation and alternative response
workers, and rounded to the nearest whole number.
■ The national number of reports per worker was based on the total of completed reports for the
reporting states, divided by the total number of investigation and alternative response workers, and
rounded to the nearest whole number.
■ States were excluded if the worker data was not submitted as full-time equivalent.
■ States were excluded if they were not able to report intake and screening workers separately from
all workers.

Table 2–1 Screened-in and Screened-out Referrals, 2016
Screened-in
Screened-in Screened-out Referrals (Reports) Screened-out Total Referrals Rate
State Referrals (Reports) Referrals Total Referrals Percent Referrals Percent per 1,000 Children
Alabama 26,036 492 26,528 98.1 1.9 24.2
Alaska 8,385 7,737 16,122 52.0 48.0 86.1
Arizona 54,530 21,451 75,981 71.8 28.2 46.6
Arkansas 34,586 19,989 54,575 63.4 36.6 77.4
California 236,469 156,285 392,754 60.2 39.8 43.2
Colorado 33,306 56,539 89,845 37.1 62.9 71.2
Connecticut 17,935 22,252 40,187 44.6 55.4 53.3
Delaware 6,971 12,728 19,699 35.4 64.6 96.4
District of Columbia 6,356 8,300 14,656 43.4 56.6 121.2
Florida 166,465 58,708 225,173 73.9 26.1 54.3
Georgia 87,652 27,659 115,311 76.0 24.0 45.9
Hawaii 2,082 3,204 5,286 39.4 60.6 17.2
Idaho 8,416 12,789 21,205 39.7 60.3 48.5
Illinois 78,963 - 78,963 - - -
Indiana 112,563 57,952 170,515 66.0 34.0 108.2
Iowa 24,923 24,143 49,066 50.8 49.2 67.1
Kansas 23,760 14,234 37,994 62.5 37.5 53.1
Kentucky 51,879 51,111 102,990 50.4 49.6 101.9
Louisiana 23,796 22,810 46,606 51.1 48.9 41.8
Maine 8,392 7,618 16,010 52.4 47.6 62.9
Maryland 21,152 28,767 49,919 42.4 57.6 37.0
Massachusetts 48,126 34,725 82,851 58.1 41.9 60.1
Michigan 91,830 58,230 150,060 61.2 38.8 68.5
Minnesota 31,060 55,268 86,328 36.0 64.0 67.0
Mississippi 26,651 4,562 31,213 85.4 14.6 43.3
Missouri 69,293 19,838 89,131 77.7 22.3 64.3
Montana 9,555 7,756 17,311 55.2 44.8 76.1
Nebraska 11,806 20,799 32,605 36.2 63.8 68.9
Nevada 15,592 18,006 33,598 46.4 53.6 49.6
New Hampshire 11,361 5,461 16,822 67.5 32.5 64.6
New Jersey 56,014 - 56,014 - - -
New Mexico 18,510 18,453 36,963 50.1 49.9 75.3
New York 159,401 - 159,401 - - -
North Carolina 67,953 - 67,953 - - -
North Dakota 3,986 - 3,986 - - -
Ohio 80,762 96,606 177,368 45.5 54.5 67.9
Oklahoma 34,625 46,246 80,871 42.8 57.2 84.1
Oregon 40,818 38,471 79,289 51.5 48.5 91.3
Pennsylvania 43,264 - 43,264 - - -
Puerto Rico - - - - - -
Rhode Island 5,891 7,762 13,653 43.1 56.9 65.5
South Carolina 34,681 9,515 44,196 78.5 21.5 40.3
South Dakota 2,504 13,521 16,025 15.6 84.4 75.1
Tennessee 75,018 47,733 122,751 61.1 38.9 81.7
Texas 186,024 51,509 237,533 78.3 21.7 32.6
Utah 20,250 17,987 38,237 53.0 47.0 41.5
Vermont 4,194 15,276 19,470 21.5 78.5 164.3
Virginia 33,661 41,759 75,420 44.6 55.4 40.3
Washington 35,327 58,302 93,629 37.7 62.3 57.5
West Virginia 24,096 16,095 40,191 60.0 40.0 107.2
Wisconsin 26,991 51,407 78,398 34.4 65.6 60.9
Wyoming 2,916 3,998 6,914 42.2 57.8 49.8
National 2,306,777 1,374,053 3,680,830 - - -
Reporting States 51 45 51 - - -
National for states reporting
both screened-in and
screened-out referrals 1,897,196 1,374,053 3,271,249 58.0 42.0 55.1
Reporting states for
reporting both screened-in
and screened-out referrals 45 45 45 - - -

Table 2–2 Average Response Time in Hours, 2012–2016
State 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Alabama 42 48 47 13 64
Alaska - 241 321 348 -
Arizona - - - - -
Arkansas 120 114 115 98 113
California - 143 144 142 139
Colorado - 15 - - -
Connecticut 25 26 40 44 44
Delaware 158 167 190 210 231
District of Columbia 16 17 20 19 22
Florida 9 10 10 10 10
Georgia - - - - -
Hawaii 169 115 113 113 154
Idaho 62 60 62 61 56
Illinois 17 - - - -
Indiana 69 85 109 103 96
Iowa 39 41 47 48 54
Kansas 76 61 76 76 67
Kentucky 48 54 83 85 75
Louisiana 118 70 77 59 73
Maine 72 72 72 72 72
Maryland 51 67 - - -
Massachusetts - - - - -
Michigan - - - 41 41
Minnesota 38 55 135 124 108
Mississippi 233 52 41 66 51
Missouri 22 25 24 - 42
Montana - - - 172 125
Nebraska 172 - 103 115 126
Nevada 15 13 16 17 19
New Hampshire - - 87 88 104
New Jersey 18 17 18 17 17
New Mexico - 79 88 76 68
New York - - - 10 11
North Carolina - - - - -
North Dakota - - - - -
Ohio 11 25 22 31 24
Oklahoma 77 62 53 48 51
Oregon 97 - - 123 133
Pennsylvania - - - - -
Puerto Rico - - - - -
Rhode Island 19 13 20 14 20
South Carolina 68 20 24 30 29
South Dakota 105 74 76 78 73
Tennessee 141 134 93 52
Texas 65 63 63 63 63
Utah 81 82 81 83 86
Vermont 96 96 88 103 107
Virginia - - - - -
Washington 44 45 42 50 40
West Virginia - - 27 71 -
Wisconsin 106 108 127 113 119
Wyoming 24 24 24 24 24
National Average 70 67 76 79 72
National Median 63 61 72 71 64
Reporting States 34 36 37 40 39

Table 2–3 Child Protective Services Workforce, 2016
Investigation and Intake, Screening, Investigation,
Intake and Alternative and Alternative
State Screening Workers Response Workers Response Workers
Alabama 85 481 566
Alaska 20 54 74
Arizona 76 483 559
Arkansas 38 478 516
California - - 4,953
Colorado - - -
Connecticut 48 252 300
Delaware 37 97 134
District of Columbia 40 122 162
Florida - - -
Georgia - - -
Hawaii 7 43 50
Idaho 12 199 211
Illinois 115 955 1,070
Indiana 107 782 889
Iowa 29 214 243
Kansas 62 222 284
Kentucky 87 1,136 1,223
Louisiana 47 205 252
Maine 30 115 145
Maryland - - -
Massachusetts 143 403 546
Michigan 139 1,368 1,507
Minnesota 229 476 705
Mississippi 47 647 694
Missouri 99 497 596
Montana 18 170 188
Nebraska - - -
Nevada 55 182 237
New Hampshire 10 60 70
New Jersey 127 1,197 1,324
New Mexico 46 203 249
New York - - -
North Carolina - - -
North Dakota - - -
Ohio - - 3,675
Oklahoma 63 679 742
Oregon 120 375 495
Pennsylvania - - 2,887
Puerto Rico - - -
Rhode Island 31 41 72
South Carolina - - -
South Dakota 33 46 79
Tennessee 67 994 1,061
Texas 526 3,651 4,177
Utah - - -
Vermont 33 67 100
Virginia 87 543 630
Washington 86 495 581
West Virginia 37 267 304
Wisconsin - - -
Wyoming - - 160
National 2,836 18,199 32,710
Reporting States 36 36 40

Table 2–4 Child Protective Services Caseload, 2016
Completed Reports
Investigation and Completed Reports per Investigation
Alternative (Reports with and Alternative
State Response Workers a Disposition) Response Worker
Alabama 481 26,036 54
Alaska 54 8,385 155
Arizona 483 54,530 113
Arkansas 478 34,586 72
California - - -
Colorado - - -
Connecticut 252 17,935 71
Delaware 97 6,971 72
District of Columbia 122 6,356 52
Florida - - -
Georgia - - -
Hawaii 43 2,082 48
Idaho 199 8,416 42
Illinois 955 78,963 83
Indiana 782 112,563 144
Iowa 214 24,923 116
Kansas 222 23,760 107
Kentucky 1,136 51,879 46
Louisiana 205 23,796 116
Maine 115 8,392 73
Maryland - - -
Massachusetts 403 48,126 119
Michigan 1,368 91,830 67
Minnesota 476 31,060 65
Mississippi 647 26,651 41
Missouri 497 69,293 139
Montana 170 9,555 56
Nebraska - - -
Nevada 182 15,592 86
New Hampshire 60 11,361 189
New Jersey 1,197 56,014 47
New Mexico 203 18,510 91
New York - - -
North Dakota - - -
Ohio - - -
Oklahoma 679 34,625 51
Oregon 375 40,818 109
Pennsylvania - - -
Puerto Rico - - -
Rhode Island 41 5,891 144
South Dakota 46 2,504 54
Tennessee 994 75,018 75
Texas 3,651 186,024 51
Utah - - -
Vermont 67 4,194 63
Virginia 543 33,661 62
Washington 495 35,327 71
West Virginia 267 24,096 90
Wisconsin - - -
Wyoming - - -
National 18,199 1,309,723 72
Reporting States 36 36 -

Children
CHAPTER 3
This chapter discusses the children who were the subjects of reports (screened-in referrals) and
the characteristics of those who were found to be victims of abuse and neglect. The Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), (P.L. 100-294) defines child abuse and neglect as, at a
minimum:
Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death,
serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or an act or failure to act,
which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.
CAPTA legislation recognizes individual state authority by providing this minimum federal definition
of child abuse and neglect. Each state defines child abuse and neglect in its own statutes and policies
and the child welfare agencies determine the appropriate response for the alleged maltreatment based
on those statutes and policies. States map their own codes to the NCANDS codes (see chapter 1).
In most states, the majority of reports receive an investigation. An investigation response results in
a determination (also known as a disposition) about the alleged child maltreatment. The two most
prevalent NCANDS dispositions are:
■ Substantiated: An investigation disposition that concludes the allegation of maltreatment or risk

of maltreatment was supported or founded by state law or policy.
■ Unsubstantiated: An investigation disposition that concludes there was not sufficient evidence
under state law to conclude or suspect that the child was maltreated or at-risk of being maltreated.
Less commonly used NCANDS dispositions for investigation responses include:
■ Indicated: A disposition that concludes maltreatment could not be substantiated under state law
or policy, but there was a reason to suspect that at least one child may have been maltreated or
was at-risk of maltreatment. This disposition is applicable only to states that distinguish between
substantiated and indicated dispositions.
■ Intentionally false: A disposition that concludes the person who made the allegation of maltreat-
ment knew that the allegation was not true.
■ Closed with no finding: A disposition that does not conclude with a specific finding because the
CPS response could not be completed. This disposition is often assigned when CPS is unable to
locate the alleged victim.
Child Maltreatment 2016 chApter 3: Children 15

■ No alleged maltreatment: A disposition for a child who received a CPS response, but was not
the subject of an allegation or any finding of maltreatment. Some states have laws requiring all
children in a household receive a CPS response if any child in the household is the subject of a CPS
response.
■ Other: States may use the category of “other” if none of the above is applicable.
State statutes also establish the level of evidence needed to determine a disposition of substantiated or
indicated. (See appendix C for each state’s level of evidence.) These statutes influence how CPS agen-
cies respond to the safety needs of the children who are the subjects of child maltreatment reports.
Alternative Response
In some states, reports of maltreatment may not be investigated, but are instead assigned to an
alternative track, called alternative response, family assessment response, or differential response.
Cases assigned to this response often include early determinations that the children have a low or
moderate risk of maltreatment. According to states, alternative responses usually include the volun-
tary acceptance of CPS services and the agreement of family needs. These cases do not result in a
formal determination regarding the maltreatment allegation or alleged perpetrator. In the National
Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) the term disposition is used when referring to both
investigation response and alternative response. In NCANDS, alternative response is defined as:
■ Alternative response: The provision of a response other than an investigation that determines if
a child or family needs services. A determination of maltreatment is not made and a perpetrator is
not determined.
Prior to the Child Maltreatment 2015 report, children who received an alternative response were
presented separately as alternative response victims and alternative response nonvictims. Beginning
with the Child Maltreatment 2015 report, children reported to NCANDS as either alternative response
victim or alternative response nonvictim are presented in a single category without reference to the
victim status. This was done to better align NCANDS’ use of the alternative response data to child
welfare practice, which does not determine if the child was a victim.
Variations in how states define and implement alternative response programs continue to emerge. For
example, several states mentioned in their commentary (appendix D) that they have an alternative
response program that is not reported to NCANDS. For some of these states, the alternative response
programs provide services for families regardless of whether there were any allegations of child
maltreatment. Some states restrict who can receive an alternative response by the type of abuse. For
example, several states mention that children who are alleged victims of sexual abuse must receive an
investigation response and are not eligible for an alternative response. Another variation in report-
ing or reason why alternative response program data may not be reported to NCANDS is that the
program may not be implemented statewide. To test implementation feasibility, states often first pilot
or rollout programs in select counties. Full implementation may depend on the results of the initial
pilot or rollout. Some states, or counties within states, implemented an alternative response program
and terminated the program a few years later. Readers are encouraged to review appendix D for more
information about these programs.
In addition, the Child Welfare Information Gateway (Gateway) compiled alternative response
research documents, reports from the National Quality Improvement Center on Differential
Response (QIC-DR), and examples of state alternative response programs on its website at
https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/responding/alternative.
Unique and Duplicate Counts
Ongoing interest in understanding the outcomes of children and their families—as well as advances
in state child welfare information systems—resulted in the ability to assign a unique identifier, within
the state, to each child who receives a CPS response. These unique identifiers enable two ways to
count children:
■ Duplicate count of children: Counting a child each time he or she was the subject of a report.
This count also is called a report-child pair.
■ Unique count of children: Counting a child once, regardless of the number times he or she was
the subject of a report.
For federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016, 51 states submitted unique counts of children. Unique counts were
used for most analyses in this chapter. Please refer to the table notes for specifics on counts.
Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response

(unique count of children)
For FFY 2016, an estimated 3.5 million children received either an investigation or alternative response
at a rate of 46.7 children per 1,000 in the population. The number of children who received a CPS
response increased by 9.5 percent from 2012 to 2016. (See exhibit 3–A, table 3–1, and related notes.)
Several states provided an explanation for the increase. (See appendix D.) Those explanations include
legislative changes to maltreatment definitions and mandatory reporting processes, the implementa-
tion of new intake (hotlines or call centers), and reducing a backlog of or more timely completion of
investigations and assessments.
Exhibit 3–A Child Disposition Rates, 2012–2016

National Estimate/
Reported Children Rounded Number of
Who Received an Children Who Received
Child Population of Investigation or National Disposition Child Population an Investigation or
Year Reporting States Reporting States Alternative Response Rate per 1,000 Children of all 52 States Alternative Response
2012 52 74,542,811 3,171,619 42.5 74,542,811 3,172,000
2013 52 74,383,731 3,183,535 42.8 74,383,731 3,184,000
2014 52 74,346,098 3,260,542 43.9 74,346,098 3,261,000
2015 52 74,349,174 3,359,555 45.2 74,349,174 3,360,000
2016 51 73,642,285 3,441,977 46.7 74,338,157 3,472,000
The number of children is a unique count. The national disposition rate was computed by dividing the number of reported children who received an
investigation or alternative response by the child population of reporting states and multiplying by 1,000.
If fewer than 52 states reported data in a given year, the national estimate of children who received an investigation or alternative response was calculated
by multiplying the national disposition rate by the child population of all 52 states and dividing by 1,000. The result was rounded to the nearest 1,000. If 52
states reported data in a given year, the number of estimated/rounded children who received an investigation or alternative response was calculated by taking
the number of reported children who received an investigation or alternative response and rounding it to the nearest 1,000. Because of the rounding rule, the
national estimate/rounded number could have fewer children than the actual reported number of children. The percent change was calculated using the national
estimate/rounded number for FFY 2012 and FFY 2016. The percent change was calculated by subtracting 2012 data from 2016 data, dividing the result by 2012
data, and multiplying by 100.

Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response
by Disposition (duplicate count of children)
For FFY 2016, approximately 4.2 million children (duplicate count) were the subjects of reports
(screened-in referrals). A child may be a victim in one report and a nonvictim in another report, and in
this analysis, the child would be counted both times. A total of 17.2 percent of children were classified
as victims with dispositions of substantiated (16.5%) and indicated (0.7%). The remaining children
were nonvictims (82.8%). (See table 3–2, exhibit 3–B, and related notes.)
Exhibit 3–B Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response by

Disposition, 2016
More than 17% of children who received a disposition were determined to be victims of maltreatment
Based on data from 51 states. See table 3–2.
Number of Child Victims (unique count of child victims)

In NCANDS, a victim is defined as a child for whom the state determined at least one maltreatment
was substantiated or indicated. This includes a child who died of child abuse and neglect. Prior to FFY
2015, children with alternative response victim dispositions were included in the victim count. To ensure
analyses are comparable across years, the new victim definition was used for trend analyses for FFY
2012 through FFY 2016.
For FFY 2016, there were an estimated 676,000 victims of abuse and neglect. This equates to a national
rate of 9.1 victims per 1,000 children in the population. The FFY 2016 national number of victims is
3.0 percent higher than the FFY 2012 national rounded number of 656,000. The percent change was
calculated using the national estimate/rounded number for FFY 2012 and FFY 2016. (See exhibit 3–C
and related notes.)
At the state level, the percent change of victims of abuse and neglect ranged from a 46.5 percent
decrease to a 135.3 percent increase from FFY 2012 to 2016. Several states provided an explanation for
the change across years in the number of victims (see appendix D). Explanations include policy and
practice changes, such as an increase in staff training and improved intake centers, and community
changes, such as awareness campaigns. Several states also noted increases due to drug use, which is
discussed more in the risk factor section of this chapter. Please note an explanation for a change may be
in a previous year’s state commentary. (See table 3–3 and related notes.) During FFY 2012–2016, there

was not much fluctuation in the national rates of victims who did not have a prior history of victimiza-
tion (known as first-time victims). The rates decreased from 6.6 per 1,000 children during 2012 to 6.5
per 1,000 children during 2016. (See table 3–4 and related notes.)
Exhibit 3–C Child Victimization Rates, 2012–2016

National Estimate/
Child Population of Victims from National Victimization Child Population Rounded Number of
Year Reporting States Reporting States Reporting States Rate per 1,000 Children of all 52 States Victims
2012 52 74,542,811 656,372 8.8 74,542,811 656,000
2013 52 74,383,731 656,361 8.8 74,383,731 656,000
2014 52 74,346,098 675,437 9.1 74,346,098 675,000
2015 52 74,349,174 683,261 9.2 74,349,174 683,000
2016 51 73,642,285 671,622 9.1 74,338,157 676,000
The number of victims is a unique count. The national victimization rate was calculated by dividing the number of victims from reporting states by the child
population of reporting states and multiplying by 1,000.
If fewer than 52 states reported data in a given year, the national estimate/rounded number of victims was calculated by multiplying the national victimization
rate by the child population of all 52 states and dividing by 1,000. The result was rounded to the nearest 1,000. If 52 states reported data in a given year, the
number of rounded victims was calculated by taking the number of reported victims and rounding it to the nearest 1,000. Because of the rounding rule, the
national estimate/rounded number could have fewer victims than the actual reported number of victims.
Child Victim Demographics (unique count of child victims)

The youngest children are the most vulnerable to maltreatment. In FFY 2016, 51 states reported that
more than one-quarter (28.5%) of victims were younger than 3 years. The victimization rate was
highest for children younger than 1 year (24.8 per 1,000 children in the population of the same age).
Victims who were 1, 2, or 3 years old had victimization rates of 11.9, 11.2, and 10.6 victims per 1,000
children of those respective ages in the population. Readers may notice some states have lower rates
across age groups than do other states. The states with lower rates may assign low-risk cases to alterna-
tive response or have other state policies or programs in place for maltreatment allegations. In general,
the rate of victimization decreased with the child’s age. (See table 3–5, exhibit 3–D, and related notes.)
The percentages of child victims were similar for both boys (48.6%) and girls (51.0%). The sex was
unknown for 0.4 percent of victims. The FFY 2016 victimization rate for girls was higher at 9.5 per
Exhibit 3–D Victims by Age, 2016

The youngest children were the most vulnerable to maltreatment
30
25 24.8
Rate per 1000 children
20
15
11.9
11.2 10.6
10 10.1 9.9 9.9 9.7
8.8
8.1
7.4 6.8 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.4
5 5.5
3.6
<1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Age

1,000 girls in the population than boys at 8.7 per 1,000 boys in the population. (See table 3–6 and
related notes.)
Most victims were of three races or ethnicities—White (44.9%), Hispanic (22.0%), and African-
American (20.7%). The racial distributions for all children in the population are 51.1 percent White,
13.8 percent African-American, and 24.9 percent Hispanic. (See table C–3.) For FFY 2016, American-
Indian or Alaska Native children had the highest rate of victimization at 14.2 per 1,000 children in
the population of the same race or ethnicity; and African-American children had the second highest
rate at 13.9 per 1,000 children. (See table 3–7 and related notes.) The FFY 2016 data show a reduction
in the African-American rate per 1,000 children and an increase in the American Indian or Alaska
Native rate per 1,000 children when compared with the FFY 2015 rates. The 2016 table includes
improved reporting from three states that were not able to pass data quality checks for FFY 2015 race
and ethnicity data.
Maltreatment Types
(unique count of child victims and duplicate count of maltreatment types)
In this analysis, a victim who suffered more than one type of maltreatment was counted for each
maltreatment type, but only once per type. This answers the question of how many different types of
maltreatment did victims suffer, rather than how many occurrences of each type; for example:
■ A victim with three reports of neglect–victim is counted once in neglect
■ A victim with one report of both neglect and physical abuse–victim is counted once in neglect and
once in physical abuse
Three-quarters (74.8%) of victims were neglected, 18.2 percent were physically abused, and 8.5
percent were sexually abused. In addition, 6.9 percent of victims experienced such “other” types of
maltreatment as threatened abuse or neglect, drug/alcohol addiction, and lack of supervision. States
may code any maltreatment as “other” if it does not fit in one of the NCANDS categories. (See
table 3–8 and related notes.) A few states have specific policies about conducting investigations into
specific maltreatment types. Readers are encouraged to review states’ comments (appendix D) about
what is included in the “other” maltreatment type category and for additional information on state
policies related to maltreatment types.
Polyvictimization in child welfare refers to children who experienced multiple types of maltreatment.
In FFY 2016, 86.0 percent of victims suffered a single type of maltreatment, although they could
suffer that single type multiple times. The remaining victims (14.0%) experienced a combination of
maltreatments. A child is considered to have suffered a combination of maltreatments if:
■ The child had two different types of maltreatment in a single report
■ The child suffered different maltreatment types in several reports (e.g., neglect in one report and
physical abuse in a second report).
The most common combination was neglect and physical abuse (5.2%). The other common combina-
tions included neglect and “other”/unknown at 3.5 percent, neglect and psychological maltreatment at
1.9 percent, and neglect and sexual abuse at 1.4 percent. (See table 3–9 and related notes.)
1 IOM (Institute of Medicine) and NRC (National Research Council). 2014. New directions in child abuse and neglect
research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Risk Factors (unique count of children)
Risk factors are characteristics of a child or caregiver that may increase the likelihood of child
maltreatment.1 NCANDS collects data for nine child risk factors and 12 caregiver risk factors. Risk
factors can be difficult to accurately assess and measure, and therefore may go undetected among
many children and caregivers. In addition, some risk factors must be clinically diagnosed, which may
not occur during the investigation or alternative response. If the case is closed prior to the diagnosis,
the CPS agency may not be notified and the information will not be reported to NCANDS. Caregivers
with these risk factors may or may not have been the perpetrators responsible for the maltreatment.
For FFY 2016, data were analyzed for four caregiver risk factors with the following NCANDS
definitions:
■ Alcohol abuse (caregiver)—The compulsive use of alcohol that is not of a temporary nature.
■ Drug abuse (caregiver)—The compulsive use of drugs that is not of a temporary nature.
■ Financial problem (caregiver)–A risk factor related to the family’s inability to provide sufficient
financial resources to meet minimum needs.

■ Inadequate housing (caregiver)–A risk factor related to substandard, overcrowded, or unsafe
housing conditions, including homelessness.
Three years of data for victims with the alcohol abuse caregiver risk factor were analyzed. This is a
change from prior analyses that examined a single year of victim and nonvictim data. From 2014 to
2016, there was an overall increase in the number of victims reported with the alcohol abuse caregiver
risk factor, which is due to better reporting. For example, several states indicated in their commentary
(appendix D) that improvements in child welfare agency systems and extract programs were made
to more accurately capture and report risk factor data to NCANDS. The percentages of victims with
the alcohol abuse caregiver risk factor fluctuated from 11.7 in 2014 to 10.7 in 2015 and 11.5 in 2016.
The fluctuation is partly due to the change in the number of states reporting each year. Several states
also had an increase in the number of victims without the alcohol abuse caregiver risk factor. (See
table 3–10 and related notes.)
Three years of data also were analyzed for victims with the drug abuse caregiver risk factor. This is
a change from prior analyses that examined a single year of victim and nonvictim data. The number
and percentage of victims reported with the drug abuse caregiver risk factor increased (27.1% to
28.5%) from 2014 to 2016. States attributed the increase to a larger number of reports citing caregiver
drug abuse and system improvements that led to better reporting. (See table 3–11 and related notes.)
Researchers have linked financial insecurity and housing insecurity to increased child welfare agency
involvement. The association between income and child maltreatment also is supported by research.2
Thirty states reported 15.5 percent of victims with the financial problem caregiver risk factor.
Percentages ranged from a low of 2.2 to a high of 51.9. (See table 3–12 and related notes.) The link
between inadequate housing and child maltreatment is less clear, but there is an association between
inadequate housing and an increase in services received.3 In 34 reporting states, 10.0 percent of
victims had a caregiver who lived in inadequate housing. The percentages ranged from a low of 2.2 to
a high of 33.9. (See table 3–13 and related notes.)
2 Sedlak, A.J., Mettenburg, J., Basena, M., Petta, I., McPherson, K., Greene, A., and Li, S. (2010). Fourth National Incidence
Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS–4): Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families.
3 Font, S. A., and Warren, E. J, Children and Youth Services Review. Inadequate housing and the child protection system
response 35(11):1809-1815. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.08.012

Special Focus on Victims With Alcohol and Drug Abuse Risk Factors
This section includes targeted analyses on child maltreatment victims younger than 1 year with drug and
alcohol abuse child risk factors. Data were analyzed for 5 years; this is a change from prior analyses that
examined a single year of victim data. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), children
born with fetal alcohol syndrome may develop learning and behavior problems, including hyperactivity,
poor concentration, and memory problems.4 The National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes
of Health conducted a study on neonatal abstinence syndrome and determined babies suffering from opiate
withdrawal were more likely to have low birthweight and respiratory complications.5 Over the years,
ammendments to CAPTA have changed and added to the state requirements related substance use. As noted
in the program instruction released by the Children’s Bureau:6
Since 2003, CAPTA has included a state plan requirement that the Governor of each state provide
an assurance that the state has policies and procedures to address the needs of substance-exposed
infants, including requirements to make appropriate referrals to CPS and other appropriate services,
and a requirement to develop a plan of safe care for the affected infants. As originally incorporated
in CAPTA, the provisions required states to have policies and procedures relating to “infants born
and identified as being affected by illegal substance abuse or withdrawal symptoms resulting from
prenatal drug exposure.” In 2010, the provision was amended by Congress to also include infants
affected by Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder.
In 2016, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) was enacted which, among other
provisions, amended CAPTA to remove the term “illegal” as applied to substance abuse affecting
infants and to specifically require that plans of safe care address the needs of both infants and their
families or caretakers. CARA also added requirements relating to data collection and monitoring.
States will now need to report, to the maximum extent practicable:
■ the number of infants identified under subsection 106(b)(2)(B)(ii)
■ the number of such infants for whom a plan of safe care was developed
■ the number of such infants for whom a referral was made for appropriate services, including
services for the affected family or caregiver.
The Children’s Bureau (CB) intends to collect this information through the National Child Abuse and
Neglect Data System (NCANDS) beginning with the submission of fiscal year (FY) 2018 data.
NCANDS uses the following child risk factor definitions:

■ Alcohol abuse (child)–The compulsive use of alcohol that is not of a temporary nature, includes Fetal
Alcohol Syndrome and exposure to alcohol during pregnancy.

■ Drug abuse (child)–The compulsive use of drugs that is not of a temporary nature, includes infants
exposed to drugs during pregnancy.
4 American Academy of Pediatrics https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/aap-press-room-media-center/

Pages/Fetal-Alcohol.aspx. https://www.healthychildren.org/English/health-issues/conditions/chronic/Pages/Fetal-Alcohol-
Spectrum-Disorders.aspx
5 National Institute on Drug Abuse; National Institutes of Health; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/infographics/dramatic-increases-in-maternal-opioid-use-
neonatal-abstinence-syndrome retrieved May 2, 2016.
6 U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children,
Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2017). Guidance on amendments made to the Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act (CAPTA) by Public Law 114-198, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016. Program
Instruction, ACYF-CB-PI-17-02. retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/resource/pi1702

Alcohol Abuse Child Risk Factor
For all victims younger than 1 year, percentages of victims with the risk factor increased from 3.1 in 2012 to
4.8 in 2016. The rates per 1,000 victims of the same age increased from 0.7 to 1.2, respectively. Analyzing
the age of victim data by month for each of the 5 years show that of the victims reported with the alcohol
abuse child risk factor during their first year, between 84.8 to 87.8 percent of victims were reported during
their first month of life. Of the victims reported with the alcohol abuse child risk factor, victims younger
than 1 month were reported with the highest percentages ranging from 5.4 to 8.0. The total number of
victims increased 1.2 times from 2012 to 2016 in the states able to report victims with the alcohol abuse
child risk factor while the number of victims reported with the alcohol child risk factor increased nearly 2.0
times (1.9) from 2012 to 2016. (See table 3–14 and related notes.)
Drug Abuse Child Risk Factor

For all victims younger than 1 year, percentages of victims with the risk factor increased from 12.3 percent
in 2012 to 15.2 percent in 2016. The rates per 1,000 victims of the same age increased from 2.6 to 3.9,
respectively. Analyzing the age of victim data by month for each of the 5 years shows that for the victims
reported with the drug abuse child risk factor during their first year, between 86.5 to 90.6 percent of victims
were reported during their first month of life. Of the victims reported with the drug abuse child risk factor,
victims younger than 1 month were reported with the highest percentages ranging from 19.2 to 25.0. The
total number of victims increased 1.4 times from 2012 to 2016 in the states able to report victims with the
drug abuse child risk factor, while the number of victims reported with the drug child risk factor increased
more than 1.7 times from 2012 to 2016. (See table 3–15 and related notes.)
Perpetrator Relationship
(unique count of child victims and duplicate count of relationships)
Victim data were analyzed by relationship of victims to their perpetrators. A victim may have been
maltreated multiple times by the same perpetrator or by different combinations of perpetrators (e.g.,
mother alone, mother and nonparent(s), mother and father). This analysis counts every combination
of relationships for each victim in each report and, therefore, the percentages total more than 100.0
percent. For FFY 2016, 91.4 percent of victims were maltreated by one or both parents. The parent(s)
could have acted together, acted alone, or acted with up to two other people to maltreat the child.
Approximately 70.0 percent of victims were maltreated by a mother, either acting alone (40.3%) or
with a father and/or nonparent (28.4%). More than 13.0 percent (13.4%) of victims were maltreated
by a perpetrator who was not the child’s parent. The largest categories in the nonparent group were
male relative, male partner of parent, and “other.” (See table 3–16 and related notes.) The NCANDS
category of “other” perpetrator relationship includes any relationship that does not map to one of
the NCANDS relationship categories. According to states’ commentary (appendix D), this category
includes nonrelated adult, nonrelated child, foster sibling, babysitter, household staff, clergy, and
school personnel.

The following pages contain the data tables referenced in Chapter 3. Specific information about state
provided below.
General
■ The data for all tables are from the Child File unless otherwise noted. Rates are per 1,000 children in
the population.
■ The count of victims includes children with dispositions of substantiated or indicated. Children with
dispositions of alternative response victims are not included in the victim count.
■ NCANDS uses the child population estimates that are released annually by the U.S. Census Bureau.
These population estimates are provided in appendix C.

■ Many states conduct investigations for all children in a family when any child is the subject of an
investigation. In these states, a disposition of “no alleged maltreatment” is assigned to siblings who
were not the subjects of an allegation and were not found to be victims. These children may have
received an alternative response, an investigation, or both.
Table 3–1 Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response,

2012–2016
■ The number of children is a unique count.
■ The percent change was calculated by subtracting 2012 data from 2016 data, dividing the result by
2012 data, and multiplying by 100. A state must have reported data for both 2012 and 2016 to have a
percent change calculated.
■ The rates were calculated by dividing the number of children who received a CPS response by the
child population and multiplying by 1,000.
Table 3–2 Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response by

Disposition, 2016
■ The number of children is a duplicate count.
■ Many states conduct investigations for all children in a family when any child is the subject of an
investigation. In these states, a disposition of “no alleged maltreatment” is assigned to siblings who
were not the subjects of an allegation and were not found to be victims. These children may have
received an alternative response, an investigation, or both.
Table 3–3 Child Victims, 2012–2016

■ The number of victims is a unique count.
■ The percent change was calculated by subtracting 2012 data from 2016 data, dividing the result by
2012 data, and multiplying by 100. A state must have reported data for both 2012 and 2016 to have a
percent change calculated.
■ The rates were calculated by dividing the number of victims by the child population and multiplying
by 1,000.

Table 3–4 First-Time Victims, 2012–2016
■ States with 95.0 percent or more first-time victims were excluded from this analysis.
Table 3–5 Victims by Age, 2016

■ Rates were calculated by dividing the victim count by the child population count and multiplying
by 1,000.
■ There are no population data for unknown age and, therefore, no rates.
Table 3–6 Victims by Sex, 2016

by 1,000.
■ There are no population data for children with unknown sex and, therefore, no rates.
Table 3–7 Victims by Race and Ethnicity, 2016

■ Counts associated with each racial group are exclusive and do not include Hispanic ethnicity.
by 1,000.
■ Only those states that reported both race and ethnicity are included in this analysis.
■ States were excluded from this analysis if more than 25.0 percent of victims were reported without a
race or ethnicity.
Table 3–8 Maltreatment Types of Victims, 2016

■ A child may have been the victim of more than one type of maltreatment, therefore, the maltreatment
type count is a duplicate count.

■ A child is counted in each maltreatment type category only once, regardless of the number of times
the child is reported as a victim of the maltreatment type.
Table 3–9 Maltreatment Type Combinations, 2016

■ Combinations are for unique children within and across unique records. This means a child with the
same ID and a report that included only neglect and a separate report that included only physical
abuse is counted in the combined Neglect and Physical Abuse category.
■ Categories are based on up to four maltreatment type combinations.
■ Neglect includes medical neglect.
■ The categories are mutually exclusive.
■ The category Remaining Combinations includes: Sexual Abuse and “Other”/Unknown;
Psychological Maltreatment and “Other”/Unknown; Neglect, Sexual Abuse, and Psychological

Maltreatment; Sexual Abuse, Physical Abuse, and Psychological Maltreatment; and all four mal-
treatment type categories plus “other”/unknown.
Table 3–10 Victims With an Alcohol Abuse Caregiver Risk Factor, 2014–2016
■ A victim is counted only once if there is more than one report in which this victim was reported
with this caregiver risk factor. The counts on this table are exclusive and follow a hierarchy rule. If a
victim was reported both with and without the caregiver risk factor, the victim is counted once with
the caregiver risk factor.

■ States were excluded from this analysis if fewer than 2.0 percent of victims were reported with this
caregiver risk factor.
■ States were excluded from this analysis if they were not able to differentiate between alcohol abuse
and drug abuse caregiver risk factors and reported both risk factors for the same children in both
caregiver risk factor categories.
■ This table was changed to the 3-year trend for Child Maltreatment 2016.
Table 3–11 Victims With a Drug Abuse Caregiver Risk Factor, 2014–2016
■ States were excluded from this analysis if fewer than 2.0 percent of the victims or nonvictims were
reported with this caregiver risk factor.

and drug abuse caregiver risk factors and reported both risk factors for the same children in both
caregiver risk factor categories.
■ This table was changed to a 3-year trend for Child Maltreatment 2016.
Table 3–12 Victims With Financial Problem Caregiver Risk Factor, 2016
■ States were excluded from this analysis if fewer than 2.0 percent of the victims were reported with
this caregiver risk factor.
Table 3–13 Victims With Inadequate Housing Caregiver Risk Factor, 2016
■ States were excluded from this analysis if fewer than 2.0 percent of the victims were reported with
this caregiver risk factor.
Table 3–14 Victims <1–11 Months With an Alcohol Abuse Child Risk Factor, 2012–2016
■ A victim is counted only once if there is more than one report in which this victim was reported with
this child risk factor. The counts on this table are exclusive and follow a hierarchy rule. If a victim
was reported both with and without the child risk factor, the victim is counted once with the child
risk factor.
risk factor.
■ States were excluded from this analysis if more than 5.0 percent of victims were missing a date of
birth.
and drug abuse child risk factors and reported both risk factors for the same children in both child
risk factor categories.

■ Victims in the categories of unborn or unknown age were not included in this analysis as there are no
associated population and rates cannot be calculated.
■ Many victims with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome are not diagnosed until after birth, even if the ingestion
of alcohol by the mother occurred before the child was born.
Table 3–15 Victims <1–11 Months With a Drug Abuse Child Risk Factor, 2012–2016
■ A victim is counted only once if there is more than one report in which this victim was reported with
this child risk factor. The counts on this table are exclusive and follow a hierarchy rule. If a victim
was reported both with and without the child risk factor, the victim is counted once with the child
risk factor.
risk factor.
■ States were excluded from this analysis if more than 5.0 percent of victims were missing a date of
birth.
and drug abuse child risk factors and reported both risk factors for the same children in both child
risk factor categories.
■ Victims in the categories of unborn or unknown age were not included in this analysis as there are no
associated population and rates cannot be calculated.

■ Many victims with drug exposure are not diagnosed until after birth, even when the ingestion of
drugs by the mother occurred before the child was born.
Table 3–16 Victims by Relationship to Their Perpetrators, 2016

■ States were excluded from this analysis if more than 10.0 percent of perpetrators were reported
without a relationship coded, if more than 50.0 percent of perpetrators were reported with an “other”
or unknown relationship, or if the sex of perpetrators was not reported.
■ The number of relationships is a duplicate count, and the number of victims is a unique count.
Percentages are calculated against the unique count of victims and total to more than 100.0 percent.
■ In NCANDS, a child victim may have up to three perpetrators. A few states’ systems do not have the
capability of collecting and reporting data for all three perpetrator fields. More information may be
found in appendix D.
■ Nonparent perpetrators counted in combination with parents (i.e., Mother and Nonparent(s); Father
and Nonparent(s); or Mother, Father, and Nonparent) are not also counted in the individual categories
listed under Nonparent.
■ The relationship categories listed under Nonparent perpetrator include any perpetrator relationship
that was not identified as an adoptive parent, a biological parent, or a stepparent.

■ The Unknown relationship category includes victims with an unknown perpetrator.
■ Some states were not able to collect and report on Group Home and Residential Facility Staff
perpetrators due to system limitations or jurisdictional issues.

Table 3–1 Children Who Received an Investigation or
Alternative Response, 2012–2016 (continues next page)
Percent Change from
State 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012 to 2016
Alabama 28,385 27,861 29,342 30,647 36,776 29.6
Alaska 9,794 9,375 10,115 10,795 11,801 20.5
Arizona 64,332 75,722 73,141 76,581 93,488 45.3
Arkansas 62,129 61,025 57,886 58,072 58,685 -5.5
California 370,439 370,182 367,223 375,972 376,738 1.7
Colorado 41,284 39,725 38,159 38,376 42,441 2.8
Connecticut 30,709 23,604 24,818 21,750 22,128 -27.9
Delaware 14,807 13,293 13,262 13,994 13,861 -6.4
District of Columbia 13,812 12,685 11,062 11,867 12,855 -6.9
Florida 293,839 284,658 288,551 281,040 287,951 -2.0
Georgia 110,323 114,270 137,222 163,134 169,328 53.5
Hawaii 3,800 3,788 3,305 3,695 3,706 -2.5
Idaho 8,694 10,542 11,567 12,233 11,363 30.7
Illinois 120,818 121,972 124,569 125,098 140,480 16.3
Indiana 92,475 116,986 127,307 139,168 146,673 58.6
Iowa 29,441 29,124 28,348 28,970 30,544 3.7
Kansas 26,866 27,756 27,711 27,565 27,388 1.9
Kentucky 63,705 70,908 71,674 74,170 71,876 12.8
Louisiana 36,029 37,728 38,952 36,382 33,570 -6.8
Maine 11,204 12,295 13,286 12,641 11,613 3.7
Maryland 31,436 29,438 31,469 30,927 32,020 1.9
Massachusetts 62,257 62,878 77,300 75,688 79,152 27.1
Michigan 171,585 170,290 152,411 147,431 149,936 -12.6
Minnesota 23,635 25,742 26,395 30,481 38,816 64.2
Mississippi 32,829 30,194 31,504 34,069 38,538 17.4
Missouri 71,912 66,327 75,302 73,523 75,593 5.1
Montana 10,607 10,393 10,180 12,669 13,702 29.2
Nebraska 23,910 21,180 22,439 23,190 22,852 -4.4
Nevada 22,246 23,633 25,023 28,277 27,833 25.1
New Hampshire 11,450 11,064 11,636 11,266 13,935 21.7
New Jersey 76,164 75,794 75,460 74,546 73,889 -3.0
New Mexico 21,899 23,399 26,805 28,223 23,656 8.0
New York 217,663 205,424 200,748 206,453 209,331 -3.8
North Carolina 125,062 121,641 122,085 123,436 119,994 -4.1
North Dakota 6,172 6,170 6,397 6,437 6,647 7.7
Ohio 102,734 103,381 102,517 101,836 103,868 1.1
Oklahoma 45,539 51,952 56,084 57,141 53,724 18.0
Oregon 33,173 40,047 37,613 39,009 51,442 55.1
Pennsylvania 23,579 23,488 25,123 36,788 40,237 70.6
Puerto Rico 22,793 29,167 28,109 27,961 - -
Rhode Island 8,571 8,485 9,374 8,429 7,546 -12.0
South Carolina 40,732 43,948 46,157 50,417 65,151 60.0
South Dakota 5,716 4,346 4,403 4,235 4,139 -27.6
Tennessee 85,180 81,715 94,657 93,154 91,562 7.5
Texas 250,623 238,706 252,773 267,880 269,952 7.7
Utah 24,500 24,504 25,219 25,523 24,985 2.0
Vermont 3,879 4,396 4,194 5,102 4,603 18.7
Virginia 62,805 61,527 61,029 60,607 62,808 0.0
Washington 43,730 43,494 42,572 45,338 40,793 -6.7
West Virginia 37,082 39,372 39,683 45,407 52,442 41.4
Wisconsin 33,643 32,309 32,751 36,330 34,539 2.7
Wyoming 5,628 5,632 5,630 5,632 5,027 -10.7
National 3,171,619 3,183,535 3,260,542 3,359,555 3,441,977 N/A
Reporting States 52 52 52 52 51 -

Table 3–1 Children Who Received an Investigation or
Alternative Response, 2012–2016
2012 Rate per 2013 Rate per 2014 Rate per 2015 Rate per 2016 Rate per
State 1,000 Children 1,000 Children 1,000 Children 1,000 Children 1,000 Children
Alabama 25.4 25.1 26.6 27.8 33.5
Alaska 52.0 49.8 54.1 57.9 63.0
Arizona 39.9 46.9 45.2 47.2 57.3
Arkansas 87.4 86.0 81.8 82.2 83.2
California 40.3 40.4 40.2 41.2 41.4
Colorado 33.5 32.1 30.6 30.6 33.6
Connecticut 38.6 30.1 32.1 28.5 29.4
Delaware 72.4 65.3 65.1 68.5 67.9
District of Columbia 128.2 113.5 96.1 100.3 106.3
Florida 73.3 70.7 71.2 68.5 69.4
Georgia 44.4 46.0 55.1 65.2 67.4
Hawaii 12.4 12.3 10.7 12.0 12.0
Idaho 20.3 24.6 26.9 28.3 26.0
Illinois 39.5 40.4 41.7 42.3 48.0
Indiana 58.2 73.8 80.5 88.1 93.1
Iowa 40.6 40.1 38.9 39.7 41.8
Kansas 37.0 38.3 38.4 38.3 38.3
Kentucky 62.6 69.8 70.7 73.3 71.1
Louisiana 32.3 33.9 34.9 32.6 30.1
Maine 42.2 46.9 51.2 49.3 45.6
Maryland 23.3 21.9 23.3 22.9 23.7
Massachusetts 44.4 45.0 55.6 54.7 57.4
Michigan 75.6 75.8 68.4 66.8 68.4
Minnesota 18.5 20.1 20.6 23.7 30.1
Mississippi 44.2 41.0 43.1 46.9 53.4
Missouri 51.2 47.4 54.0 52.9 54.5
Montana 47.6 46.4 45.2 56.0 60.2
Nebraska 51.6 45.5 48.0 49.3 48.3
Nevada 33.9 35.9 37.8 42.3 41.1
New Hampshire 41.6 40.8 43.6 42.8 53.5
New Jersey 37.4 37.5 37.5 37.3 37.2
New Mexico 42.8 46.1 53.5 56.9 48.2
New York 50.9 48.3 47.5 49.1 50.1
North Carolina 54.8 53.3 53.4 53.9 52.2
North Dakota 39.2 37.8 37.9 36.9 37.7
Ohio 38.5 39.0 38.8 38.8 39.8
Oklahoma 48.5 54.8 58.8 59.5 55.9
Oregon 38.6 46.7 43.8 45.2 59.2
Pennsylvania 8.6 8.6 9.3 13.7 15.0
Puerto Rico 27.3 36.3 36.6 38.2 -
Rhode Island 39.5 39.6 44.2 40.1 36.2
South Carolina 37.8 40.8 42.6 46.2 59.4
South Dakota 27.8 20.9 21.0 20.0 19.4
Tennessee 57.1 54.8 63.3 62.2 61.0
Texas 35.9 33.9 35.5 37.1 37.0
Utah 27.6 27.3 27.9 28.0 27.1
Vermont 31.1 35.7 34.4 42.5 38.8
Virginia 33.7 33.0 32.7 32.4 33.6
Washington 27.5 27.3 26.6 28.1 25.0
West Virginia 96.5 102.9 104.2 120.0 139.8
Wisconsin 25.5 24.7 25.2 28.1 26.8
Wyoming 41.2 40.9 40.7 40.4 36.2
National 42.5 42.8 43.9 45.2 46.7
Reporting States - - - - -

Table 3–2 Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative
Response by Disposition, 2016 (continues next page)
State Substantiated Indicated Alternative Response Unsubstantiated Intentionally False
Alabama 10,424 - - 27,193 -
Alaska 3,739 - - 10,731 -
Arizona 11,325 131 - 69,390 -
Arkansas 10,320 - 6,596 31,408 -
California 73,307 - - 315,389 -
Colorado 11,943 - 10,511 28,313 -
Connecticut 8,488 - - 18,122 -
Delaware 1,612 - - 10,808 170
District of Columbia 1,446 - 4,042 3,780 -
Florida 44,155 - - 227,304 -
Georgia 22,761 - 55,630 56,311 -
Hawaii 1,511 - - 2,308 -
Idaho 1,931 - - 11,890 539
Illinois 32,092 - - 95,221 378
Indiana 30,460 - - 168,021 -
Iowa 9,560 - 12,956 16,870 -
Kansas 2,492 - - 31,736 -
Kentucky 22,031 - 7,812 57,473 -
Louisiana 11,968 - - 24,495 -
Maine 3,609 - - 9,866 -
Maryland 4,230 3,347 19,010 8,827 -
Massachusetts 36,228 - 12,050 28,316 -
Michigan 19,965 19,630 - 113,051 109
Minnesota 8,468 - 25,562 9,902 -
Mississippi 10,984 - - 34,861 -
Missouri 5,741 - 56,162 35,756 -
Montana 3,280 35 - 13,174 -
Nebraska 2,899 - 435 16,948 -
Nevada 5,192 - 2,057 17,916 -
New Hampshire 929 - - 15,216 -
New Jersey 8,670 - - 79,940 -
New Mexico 8,646 - - 21,081 -
New York 74,964 - 17,752 166,807 -
North Carolina 7,375 - 112,412 21,325 -
North Dakota 1,911 - - 5,534 -
Ohio 18,518 7,051 53,339 41,700 -
Oklahoma 15,072 - 2,431 42,301 -
Oregon 13,582 - 10,767 34,314 -
Pennsylvania 4,542 - - 38,722 -
Rhode Island 3,153 - - 5,595 -
South Carolina 18,193 - 21,591 24,742 -
South Dakota 1,297 - - 3,087 -
Tennessee 9,195 745 62,791 31,387 -
Texas 59,308 - 19,014 200,958 -
Utah 10,272 - - 18,047 35
Vermont 911 - 2,091 2,452 25
Virginia 6,092 - 37,335 7,719 85
Washington 5,321 - 20,331 23,111 44
West Virginia 6,074 - - 35,329 -
Wisconsin 5,045 - 5,166 31,235 -
Wyoming 1,004 - 4,778 291 -
National 692,235 30,939 582,621 2,346,273 1,385

Table 3–2 Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative
Response by Disposition, 2016
State Closed With No Finding No Alleged Maltreatment Other Unknown Total Children
Alabama 2,061 - - 77 39,755
Alaska 672 - - - 15,142
Arizona 3,197 35,741 - - 119,784
Arkansas 1,434 19,534 - - 69,292
California - 71,371 - 4 460,071
Colorado - - - 4 50,771
Connecticut - - - - 26,610
Delaware 2,723 834 144 - 16,291
District of Columbia 158 5,678 - 1 15,105
Florida - 80,391 - - 351,850
Georgia - 77,053 - - 211,755
Hawaii - - - 36 3,855
Idaho - - - - 14,360
Illinois - 48,478 - - 176,169
Indiana - - - - 198,481
Iowa - - - 9 39,395
Kansas 309 - - - 34,537
Kentucky 1,527 - 97 - 88,940
Louisiana 1,619 - - - 38,082
Maine - 133 - - 13,608
Maryland - - - - 35,414
Massachusetts - 20,115 - - 96,709
Michigan 5,617 32,543 - 15 190,930
Minnesota 1,866 - - - 45,798
Mississippi 1,519 - - - 47,364
Missouri 2,958 - - 659 101,276
Montana 837 84 115 13 17,538
Nebraska 483 7,482 - - 28,247
Nevada - 8,411 - - 33,576
New Hampshire 1,213 - - - 17,358
New Jersey - - - - 88,610
New Mexico - - - - 29,727
New York - 2,629 11 - 262,163
North Carolina - - - - 141,112
North Dakota - - - - 7,445
Ohio 4,018 - - - 124,626
Oklahoma 3,207 - - - 63,011
Oregon 2,317 - 6,838 3 67,821
Pennsylvania - - - - 43,264
Rhode Island 93 - - - 8,841
South Carolina - 14,315 - 170 79,011
South Dakota 200 - - - 4,584
Tennessee 8,393 - 4 130 112,645
Texas 4,646 - 16,718 2,631 303,275
Utah 1,394 - - - 29,748
Vermont - - - - 5,479
Virginia 11 18,118 69 5 69,434
Washington 2,314 - - - 51,121
West Virginia 2,372 10,460 - 8 54,243
Wisconsin - - - - 41,446
Wyoming - - - - 6,073
National 57,158 453,370 23,996 3,765 4,191,742

Table 3–3 Child Victims, 2012–2016 (continues next page)
Percent Change from
State 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012 to 2016
Alabama 9,573 8,809 8,697 8,466 10,157 6.1
Alaska 2,928 2,448 2,484 2,898 3,142 7.3
Arizona 10,039 13,171 13,885 11,955 10,841 8.0
Arkansas 11,133 10,370 8,971 9,204 9,707 -12.8
California 76,026 75,641 75,033 72,000 68,663 -9.7
Colorado 10,464 10,161 9,979 10,100 11,226 7.3
Connecticut 8,151 7,287 7,651 6,970 7,803 -4.3
Delaware 2,335 1,915 1,482 1,538 1,572 -32.7
District of Columbia 2,141 2,050 1,528 1,348 1,366 -36.2
Florida 53,341 48,457 45,738 43,775 41,894 -21.5
Georgia 18,752 19,062 22,163 26,952 21,635 15.4
Hawaii 1,398 1,324 1,331 1,506 1,491 6.7
Idaho 1,428 1,674 1,595 1,623 1,847 29.3
Illinois 20,049 18,465 25,597 29,993 29,059 44.9
Indiana 20,223 21,755 23,334 26,397 28,430 40.6
Iowa 10,751 11,345 8,071 7,877 8,555 -20.4
Kansas 1,868 2,063 1,998 1,992 2,403 28.6
Kentucky 14,923 17,591 17,932 18,897 20,010 34.1
Louisiana 8,458 10,119 12,057 12,631 11,289 33.5
Maine 3,781 3,820 3,823 3,372 3,446 -8.9
Maryland 13,079 12,169 9,119 6,790 6,993 -46.5
Massachusetts 19,234 20,307 31,863 31,089 32,093 66.9
Michigan 33,394 33,938 30,705 34,729 37,293 11.7
Minnesota 4,238 4,183 4,143 5,120 7,941 87.4
Mississippi 7,599 7,415 8,435 8,730 10,179 34.0
Missouri 4,685 5,224 5,322 5,699 5,481 17.0
Montana 1,324 1,414 1,191 1,868 3,116 135.3
Nebraska 3,888 3,993 3,940 3,483 2,783 -28.4
Nevada 5,437 5,438 4,589 4,953 4,891 -10.0
New Hampshire 901 822 646 745 905 0.4
New Jersey 9,031 9,490 11,586 9,689 8,264 -8.5
New Mexico 5,882 6,530 7,606 8,701 7,526 27.9
New York 68,375 64,578 65,042 66,676 65,123 -4.8
North Carolina 8,919 7,823 8,414 7,857 7,134 -20.0
North Dakota 1,402 1,517 1,612 1,760 1,805 28.7
Ohio 29,250 27,562 24,936 23,006 23,635 -19.2
Oklahoma 9,627 11,553 13,183 14,449 14,308 48.6
Oregon 9,576 10,280 10,088 10,428 11,851 23.8
Pennsylvania 3,417 3,260 3,262 3,629 4,355 27.5
Puerto Rico 8,470 8,850 7,683 6,950 - -
Rhode Island 3,218 3,132 3,410 3,183 2,955 -8.2
South Carolina 11,439 10,404 12,439 14,856 17,331 51.5
South Dakota 1,224 984 886 1,073 1,246 1.8
Tennessee 10,069 10,377 11,695 11,362 9,665 -4.0
Texas 62,551 64,603 65,334 63,781 57,374 -8.3
Utah 9,419 9,306 9,876 9,569 9,614 2.1
Vermont 649 746 813 921 822 26.7
Virginia 5,826 5,863 6,464 6,112 5,941 2.0
Washington 6,546 7,132 7,341 5,894 4,725 -27.8
West Virginia 4,591 4,695 4,962 4,857 5,938 29.3
Wisconsin 4,645 4,526 4,642 4,840 4,822 3.8
Wyoming 705 720 861 968 977 38.6
National 656,372 656,361 675,437 683,261 671,622 N/A
Reporting States 52 52 52 52 51 -

Table 3–3 Child Victims, 2012–2016
2012 Rate per 1,000 2013 Rate per 1,000 2014 Rate per 1,000 2015 Rate per 1,000 2016 Rate per 1,000
State Children Children Children Children Children
Alabama 8.6 7.9 7.9 7.7 9.3
Alaska 15.5 13.0 13.3 15.5 16.8
Arizona 6.2 8.2 8.6 7.4 6.6
Arkansas 15.7 14.6 12.7 13.0 13.8
California 8.3 8.3 8.2 7.9 7.6
Colorado 8.5 8.2 8.0 8.0 8.9
Connecticut 10.3 9.3 9.9 9.1 10.4
Delaware 11.4 9.4 7.3 7.5 7.7
Florida 13.3 12.0 11.3 10.7 10.1
Georgia 7.5 7.7 8.9 10.8 8.6
Hawaii 4.6 4.3 4.3 4.9 4.8
Idaho 3.3 3.9 3.7 3.8 4.2
Illinois 6.6 6.1 8.6 10.1 9.9
Indiana 12.7 13.7 14.7 16.7 18.0
Iowa 14.8 15.6 11.1 10.8 11.7
Kansas 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.4
Kentucky 14.7 17.3 17.7 18.7 19.8
Louisiana 7.6 9.1 10.8 11.3 10.1
Maine 14.2 14.6 14.7 13.1 13.5
Maryland 9.7 9.0 6.8 5.0 5.2
Massachusetts 13.7 14.5 22.9 22.4 23.3
Michigan 14.7 15.1 13.8 15.7 17.0
Minnesota 3.3 3.3 3.2 4.0 6.2
Mississippi 10.2 10.1 11.5 12.0 14.1
Missouri 3.3 3.7 3.8 4.1 4.0
Montana 5.9 6.3 5.3 8.3 13.7
Nebraska 8.4 8.6 8.4 7.4 5.9
Nevada 8.3 8.3 6.9 7.4 7.2
New Hampshire 3.3 3.0 2.4 2.8 3.5
New Jersey 4.4 4.7 5.8 4.9 4.2
New Mexico 11.5 12.9 15.2 17.5 15.3
New York 16.0 15.2 15.4 15.9 15.6
North Carolina 3.9 3.4 3.7 3.4 3.1
North Dakota 8.9 9.3 9.5 10.1 10.2
Ohio 11.0 10.4 9.4 8.8 9.0
Oklahoma 10.2 12.2 13.8 15.0 14.9
Oregon 11.1 12.0 11.7 12.1 13.6
Pennsylvania 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.6
Puerto Rico 10.1 11.0 10.0 9.5 -
Rhode Island 14.8 14.6 16.1 15.1 14.2
South Carolina 10.6 9.7 11.5 13.6 15.8
South Dakota 6.0 4.7 4.2 5.1 5.8
Tennessee 6.8 7.0 7.8 7.6 6.4
Texas 9.0 9.2 9.2 8.8 7.9
Utah 10.6 10.4 10.9 10.5 10.4
Vermont 5.2 6.1 6.7 7.7 6.9
Virginia 3.1 3.1 3.5 3.3 3.2
Washington 4.1 4.5 4.6 3.7 2.9
West Virginia 11.9 12.3 13.0 12.8 15.8
Wisconsin 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.7
Wyoming 5.2 5.2 6.2 6.9 7.0
National 8.8 8.8 9.1 9.2 9.1

Table 3–4 First-Time Victims, 2012–2016 (continues next page)
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
State First-Time Victims First-Time Victims First-Time Victims First-Time Victims First-Time Victims
Alabama 7,965 7,232 7,186 7,003 8,414
Alaska 1,963 1,634 1,546 1,966 2,158
Arizona 8,766 11,360 11,742 9,879 8,669
Arkansas 8,962 8,375 7,416 7,557 7,958
California 64,057 63,698 63,126 60,903 57,950
Colorado 7,856 7,651 7,417 7,465 8,366
Connecticut 5,660 5,071 5,346 4,862 5,593
Delaware 1,823 1,502 1,167 1,241 1,276
District of Columbia 1,552 1,457 1,074 967 989
Florida 26,506 23,785 22,088 20,898 19,629
Georgia 15,883 15,785 18,019 21,757 17,052
Hawaii 1,102 1,092 1,101 1,182 1,249
Idaho 1,169 1,452 1,351 1,313 1,546
Illinois 14,543 13,394 18,681 21,832 20,504
Indiana 18,250 16,566 17,453 19,357 20,817
Iowa 7,382 7,891 5,506 5,433 6,079
Kansas 1,707 1,846 1,802 1,833 2,185
Kentucky 10,511 12,486 12,597 13,263 13,726
Louisiana 6,318 7,741 9,494 9,722 8,702
Maine 1,699 2,475 2,585 2,253 2,303
Maryland 10,244 9,486 6,785 4,852 5,174
Massachusetts 10,947 11,926 19,491 18,072 17,760
Michigan 23,027 23,112 14,819 16,998 17,325
Minnesota 3,511 3,483 3,498 4,358 6,807
Mississippi 6,854 6,616 7,476 7,802 8,996
Missouri 3,971 4,439 4,582 4,876 4,696
Montana 1,031 1,148 958 1,515 2,554
Nebraska 2,918 2,872 2,858 2,604 2,013
Nevada 3,570 3,538 2,875 3,096 3,125
New Hampshire - - 552 612 761
New Jersey 7,310 7,689 9,473 7,661 6,560
New Mexico 4,372 4,824 5,680 6,556 5,425
New York 41,997 39,463 39,687 40,568 39,498
North Carolina 5,989 5,334 5,795 5,464 5,054
North Dakota 1,214 1,264 1,236 1,336 1,364
Ohio 20,453 19,244 17,587 16,151 17,015
Oklahoma 7,618 9,021 10,524 11,401 11,176
Oregon 6,740 7,119 6,805 7,029 7,757
Pennsylvania 3,199 3,047 3,055 3,439 4,133
Puerto Rico - - 6,502 5,634 -
Rhode Island 2,264 2,135 2,407 2,213 2,059
South Carolina 8,556 7,801 9,508 11,428 13,183
South Dakota 933 749 696 861 1,008
Tennessee 8,494 8,813 9,964 9,481 4,701
Texas 50,153 51,674 52,477 50,909 45,999
Utah 6,845 6,680 7,104 6,819 6,866
Vermont 531 633 678 777 710
Virginia - - - - -
Washington 4,694 4,856 4,052 3,082 2,290
West Virginia 3,540 3,795 3,984 4,118 5,192
Wisconsin 3,936 3,907 3,987 4,149 4,129
Wyoming 616 601 700 817 812
National 469,201 467,762 482,492 485,364 469,307

Table 3–4 First-Time Victims, 2012–2016
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
First-Time Victims Rate First-Time Victims Rate First-Time Victims Rate First-Time Victims Rate First-Time Victims Rate
State per 1,000 Children per 1,000 Children per 1,000 Children per 1,000 Children per 1,000 Children
Alabama 7.1 6.5 6.5 6.4 7.7
Alaska 10.4 8.7 8.3 10.5 11.5
Arizona 5.4 7.0 7.3 6.1 5.3
Arkansas 12.6 11.8 10.5 10.7 11.3
California 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.7 6.4
Colorado 6.4 6.2 6.0 5.9 6.6
Connecticut 7.1 6.5 6.9 6.4 7.4
Delaware 8.9 7.4 5.7 6.1 6.2
Florida 6.6 5.9 5.4 5.1 4.7
Georgia 6.4 6.4 7.2 8.7 6.8
Hawaii 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.8 4.1
Idaho 2.7 3.4 3.1 3.0 3.5
Illinois 4.8 4.4 6.2 7.4 7.0
Indiana 11.5 10.4 11.0 12.3 13.2
Iowa 10.2 10.9 7.6 7.5 8.3
Kansas 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.1
Kentucky 10.3 12.3 12.4 13.1 13.6
Louisiana 5.7 7.0 8.5 8.7 7.8
Maine 6.4 9.4 10.0 8.8 9.0
Maryland 7.6 7.0 5.0 3.6 3.8
Massachusetts 7.8 8.5 14.0 13.0 12.9
Michigan 10.1 10.3 6.7 7.7 7.9
Minnesota 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.4 5.3
Mississippi 9.2 9.0 10.2 10.7 12.5
Missouri 2.8 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.4
Montana 4.6 5.1 4.3 6.7 11.2
Nebraska 6.3 6.2 6.1 5.5 4.3
Nevada 5.4 5.4 4.3 4.6 4.6
New Hampshire - - 2.1 2.3 2.9
New Jersey 3.6 3.8 4.7 3.8 3.3
New Mexico 8.5 9.5 11.3 13.2 11.1
New York 9.8 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.4
North Carolina 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.2
North Dakota 7.7 7.7 7.3 7.7 7.7
Ohio 7.7 7.3 6.7 6.1 6.5
Oklahoma 8.1 9.5 11.0 11.9 11.6
Oregon 7.8 8.3 7.9 8.1 8.9
Pennsylvania 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.5
Puerto Rico - - 8.5 7.7 -
Rhode Island 10.4 10.0 11.3 10.5 9.9
South Carolina 7.9 7.2 8.8 10.5 12.0
South Dakota 4.5 3.6 3.3 4.1 4.7
Tennessee 5.7 5.9 6.7 6.3 3.1
Texas 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.1 6.3
Utah 7.7 7.4 7.9 7.5 7.4
Vermont 4.3 5.1 5.6 6.5 6.0
Virginia - - - - -
Washington 3.0 3.0 2.5 1.9 1.4
West Virginia 9.2 9.9 10.5 10.9 13.8
Wisconsin 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.2
Wyoming 4.5 4.4 5.1 5.9 5.8
National 6.6 6.5 6.7 6.7 6.5

Table 3–5 Victims by Age, 2016 (continues next page)
State <1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Alabama 1,573 697 679 603 590 561 536 588 525 478
Alaska 424 218 212 215 203 210 190 203 189 176
Arizona 2,606 788 683 637 590 591 574 534 498 476
Arkansas 1,741 617 570 519 493 553 583 504 519 458
California 10,941 4,734 4,297 4,089 3,995 4,004 3,945 3,925 3,654 3,479
Colorado 1,627 786 765 675 743 635 668 702 641 579
Connecticut 1,068 550 487 462 410 445 495 432 440 382
Delaware 179 102 91 108 81 101 104 114 90 81
District of Columbia 139 93 94 92 79 100 88 87 77 66
Florida 6,195 3,490 3,172 2,973 2,644 2,508 2,535 2,336 2,189 1,987
Georgia 2,793 1,412 1,365 1,246 1,224 1,308 1,379 1,390 1,261 1,162
Hawaii 277 97 109 91 88 77 81 98 74 84
Idaho 388 119 123 109 80 111 105 87 118 87
Illinois 3,904 2,311 2,160 1,982 1,868 1,766 1,725 1,641 1,680 1,524
Indiana 4,575 2,031 1,869 1,751 1,677 1,653 1,651 1,615 1,614 1,431
Iowa 1,361 725 657 603 577 504 510 513 457 404
Kansas 150 134 152 160 153 152 136 164 149 153
Kentucky 2,890 1,440 1,480 1,344 1,294 1,201 1,182 1,135 1,135 1,025
Louisiana 2,555 759 718 655 690 624 632 567 581 505
Maine 488 267 268 229 224 200 229 214 219 187
Maryland 588 425 408 459 442 441 418 448 378 350
Massachusetts 4,198 2,183 2,044 1,962 1,934 1,871 1,971 1,930 1,869 1,662
Michigan 7,702 2,489 2,486 2,242 2,092 2,034 2,005 1,911 1,853 1,744
Minnesota 1,096 504 484 520 508 484 532 506 474 476
Mississippi 1,326 613 571 582 570 595 649 626 622 564
Missouri 437 372 372 369 325 305 318 319 330 295
Montana 440 275 234 203 185 216 189 194 187 156
Nebraska 370 244 202 185 199 176 191 185 150 125
Nevada 839 414 341 325 301 296 325 275 240 234
New Hampshire 126 67 69 49 61 55 51 54 48 41
New Jersey 1,068 522 515 522 514 457 526 479 503 435
New Mexico 1,066 494 483 420 410 425 513 475 473 407
New York 6,362 4,014 3,826 3,719 3,565 3,800 4,002 4,026 3,657 3,521
North Carolina 691 466 437 460 415 430 471 430 440 375
North Dakota 225 138 125 118 110 89 124 105 108 108
Ohio 3,283 1,442 1,453 1,408 1,336 1,317 1,392 1,387 1,326 1,155
Oklahoma 2,465 1,165 1,032 951 912 877 901 848 842 727
Oregon 1,454 868 862 756 778 733 654 733 665 624
Pennsylvania 316 201 178 198 205 241 205 206 225 198
Puerto Rico - - - - - - - - - -
Rhode Island 494 240 183 191 172 172 172 182 159 151
South Carolina 2,307 1,258 1,183 1,053 1,103 1,071 1,125 1,034 1,013 918
South Dakota 215 116 83 91 88 70 75 68 58 52
Tennessee 1,717 544 532 517 502 494 454 466 475 452
Texas 9,921 4,845 4,588 4,136 3,879 3,810 3,410 3,184 2,782 2,681
Utah 1,010 564 518 547 517 574 509 598 516 501
Vermont 63 49 40 42 50 57 53 37 47 36
Virginia 709 480 443 410 362 367 328 335 316 298
Washington 445 369 360 334 325 287 305 294 277 226
West Virginia 907 438 403 379 373 398 376 345 302 307
Wisconsin 566 340 323 286 324 272 345 310 269 250
Wyoming 113 74 71 68 52 55 53 61 62 55
National 98,393 47,583 44,800 42,045 40,312 39,773 39,990 38,900 36,776 33,848
Reporting States 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51

Unborn,
Unknown,
State 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 and 18–21 Total
Alabama 418 404 414 444 516 523 343 220 45 10,157
Alaska 152 142 122 122 97 98 82 63 24 3,142
Arizona 402 395 353 367 359 374 352 245 17 10,841
Arkansas 384 359 441 400 465 450 354 225 72 9,707
California 3,181 2,828 2,883 2,729 2,678 2,636 2,614 1,982 69 68,663
Colorado 522 491 453 476 428 414 349 240 32 11,226
Connecticut 364 339 354 335 350 348 304 199 39 7,803
Delaware 87 79 70 61 87 56 49 31 1 1,572
District of Columbia 64 60 59 63 48 59 57 37 4 1,366
Florida 1,773 1,592 1,556 1,525 1,519 1,467 1,249 1,004 180 41,894
Georgia 1,109 958 897 919 934 973 819 448 38 21,635
Hawaii 55 52 55 60 53 65 39 31 5 1,491
Idaho 77 70 57 63 84 76 48 45 - 1,847
Illinois 1,375 1,261 1,255 1,094 1,035 999 827 603 49 29,059
Indiana 1,218 1,148 1,159 1,203 1,160 1,139 883 604 49 28,430
Iowa 385 370 287 332 264 273 211 115 7 8,555
Kansas 143 117 109 122 121 121 100 64 3 2,403
Kentucky 849 846 810 752 759 733 633 452 50 20,010
Louisiana 436 405 410 440 407 370 344 177 14 11,289
Maine 172 155 126 131 121 100 64 45 7 3,446
Maryland 346 322 293 346 375 358 323 245 28 6,993
Massachusetts 1,587 1,465 1,358 1,360 1,291 1,279 1,144 919 66 32,093
Michigan 1,566 1,436 1,458 1,449 1,470 1,380 1,154 765 57 37,293
Minnesota 395 341 322 354 308 263 207 149 18 7,941
Mississippi 481 427 451 466 483 496 389 248 20 10,179
Missouri 328 271 221 290 280 291 249 108 1 5,481
Montana 148 118 118 130 92 105 64 40 22 3,116
Nebraska 120 102 105 105 99 95 74 49 7 2,783
Nevada 197 198 169 163 176 149 137 99 13 4,891
New Hampshire 35 41 49 35 39 30 36 16 3 905
New Jersey 415 363 349 346 366 338 297 235 14 8,264
New Mexico 398 346 322 301 298 249 256 139 51 7,526
New York 3,083 3,122 2,967 3,249 3,380 3,559 3,296 1,822 153 65,123
North Carolina 383 336 350 378 329 352 272 105 14 7,134
North Dakota 77 88 85 51 65 67 61 30 31 1,805
Ohio 1,087 1,026 1,073 1,063 1,159 1,121 883 664 60 23,635
Oklahoma 638 542 512 468 424 404 341 218 41 14,308
Oregon 538 541 548 506 463 439 355 275 59 11,851
Pennsylvania 208 212 248 299 355 301 289 214 56 4,355
Puerto Rico - - - - - - - - - -
Rhode Island 140 100 120 110 105 97 95 61 11 2,955
South Carolina 837 711 643 660 672 592 540 198 413 17,331
South Dakota 56 45 49 41 44 34 32 14 15 1,246
Tennessee 411 419 489 440 434 441 390 283 205 9,665
Texas 2,305 2,099 1,960 1,912 1,816 1,678 1,420 711 237 57,374
Utah 471 438 454 501 507 504 488 375 22 9,614
Vermont 37 26 43 45 68 51 48 29 1 822
Virginia 274 236 251 216 246 225 197 155 93 5,941
Washington 221 209 205 184 197 184 179 116 8 4,725
West Virginia 262 246 246 217 223 192 175 106 43 5,938
Wisconsin 259 218 174 188 208 205 162 99 24 4,822
Wyoming 60 40 42 49 43 31 29 17 2 977
National 30,529 28,155 27,544 27,560 27,500 26,784 23,303 15,334 2,493 671,622
Reporting States 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 50 51

<1 Rate per 1 Rate per 2 Rate per 3 Rate per 4 Rate per 5 Rate per 6 Rate per 7 Rate per 8 Rate per
1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
State Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children
Alabama 27.0 11.8 11.5 10.4 10.1 9.4 9.0 9.8 8.5
Alaska 38.8 20.2 19.2 19.3 20.0 18.5 18.1 19.5 17.8
Arizona 29.7 8.9 7.8 7.3 6.7 6.8 6.5 5.9 5.3
Arkansas 46.1 16.2 15.0 13.7 12.8 14.3 15.2 13.0 13.0
California 21.9 9.5 8.7 8.2 8.1 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.1
Colorado 24.0 11.6 11.3 10.0 11.0 9.2 9.5 10.0 8.9
Connecticut 29.5 15.0 13.1 12.5 10.7 11.5 12.5 10.9 10.6
Delaware 16.5 9.4 8.3 9.8 7.3 8.8 9.1 10.3 7.9
District of Columbia 14.8 10.6 11.0 10.6 9.8 11.8 11.7 13.6 11.8
Florida 27.5 15.4 14.0 13.4 11.7 11.1 11.4 10.4 9.4
Georgia 21.4 10.6 10.4 9.5 9.1 9.6 10.0 10.0 8.8
Hawaii 15.1 5.5 5.9 4.9 4.8 4.2 4.7 5.7 4.2
Idaho 16.9 5.1 5.4 4.7 3.5 4.8 4.4 3.5 4.7
Illinois 25.4 14.9 14.0 12.9 12.0 11.2 10.8 10.3 10.2
Indiana 54.7 24.1 22.1 20.6 19.8 19.5 19.3 18.8 18.2
Iowa 34.4 18.1 16.3 15.1 14.6 12.9 12.6 12.7 11.0
Kansas 3.9 3.5 3.9 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.4 4.1 3.6
Kentucky 52.7 26.0 26.9 24.1 23.7 21.9 21.4 20.7 19.9
Louisiana 41.0 12.1 11.4 10.7 11.3 10.2 10.4 9.2 9.1
Maine 38.3 20.8 20.8 17.3 16.8 15.4 16.7 15.6 15.4
Maryland 8.1 5.8 5.5 6.3 6.0 5.8 5.6 6.1 5.0
Massachusetts 58.4 30.4 28.4 27.0 26.5 25.3 26.6 26.4 24.7
Michigan 67.6 21.7 21.4 19.5 18.2 17.6 17.2 16.4 15.4
Minnesota 15.7 7.2 6.8 7.3 7.3 6.9 7.5 7.1 6.5
Mississippi 35.5 16.3 15.0 15.5 14.9 15.4 16.6 15.6 14.6
Missouri 5.9 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.3 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.2
Montana 34.8 21.7 18.6 16.0 14.9 17.5 15.1 15.1 14.4
Nebraska 13.9 9.1 7.6 7.0 7.6 6.8 7.2 7.0 5.6
Nevada 22.7 11.2 9.2 8.9 8.2 8.0 8.7 7.3 6.1
New Hampshire 10.1 5.3 5.3 3.7 4.7 4.0 3.8 3.9 3.4
New Jersey 10.4 5.1 4.9 5.0 4.8 4.2 4.9 4.5 4.6
New Mexico 42.5 19.4 18.6 16.0 15.6 15.6 18.8 17.4 16.5
New York 27.2 17.3 16.6 16.0 15.4 16.2 17.4 18.1 16.0
North Carolina 5.7 3.8 3.6 3.8 3.4 3.5 3.8 3.4 3.3
North Dakota 19.6 12.1 11.1 11.2 10.4 8.8 12.5 10.6 10.9
Ohio 23.8 10.4 10.3 10.0 9.6 9.5 9.9 9.8 9.1
Oklahoma 47.0 21.8 19.4 17.6 17.0 16.4 16.8 15.8 15.4
Oregon 31.0 18.3 18.2 16.1 16.5 15.5 13.6 15.2 13.4
Pennsylvania 2.2 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.5
Puerto Rico - - - - - - - - -
Rhode Island 45.5 21.8 17.0 17.5 15.4 15.7 15.6 16.7 13.9
South Carolina 39.6 21.4 20.1 18.1 18.6 18.0 18.6 16.7 16.0
South Dakota 17.6 9.5 6.6 7.4 7.3 5.8 6.2 5.7 4.8
Tennessee 21.2 6.6 6.6 6.4 6.1 6.2 5.6 5.7 5.6
Texas 24.4 11.9 11.3 10.3 9.7 9.4 8.4 7.9 6.7
Utah 19.7 11.0 10.3 10.7 10.4 11.4 9.7 11.3 9.6
Vermont 10.4 8.0 6.5 7.0 8.0 9.2 8.5 6.0 7.2
Virginia 7.0 4.7 4.3 4.0 3.5 3.6 3.2 3.3 3.0
Washington 4.9 4.0 4.0 3.7 3.6 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.0
West Virginia 46.2 22.1 20.0 18.3 18.0 19.4 18.6 17.0 14.3
Wisconsin 8.6 5.1 4.8 4.2 4.7 3.9 4.9 4.4 3.7
Wyoming 15.3 9.8 9.1 8.8 6.7 7.1 6.7 7.6 7.5
National 24.8 11.9 11.2 10.6 10.1 9.9 9.9 9.7 8.8
Reporting States - - - - - - - - -

Table 3–5 Victims by Age, 2016
9 Rate per 10 Rate per 11 Rate per 12 Rate per 13 Rate per 14 Rate per 15 Rate per 16 Rate per 17 Rate per
1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
State Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children
Alabama 7.7 6.8 6.6 6.8 7.3 8.4 8.1 5.2 3.4
Alaska 17.1 14.7 14.3 12.3 12.3 9.9 10.0 8.0 6.3
Arizona 5.0 4.3 4.3 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7 2.7
Arkansas 11.3 9.6 9.0 11.1 10.2 12.0 11.2 8.7 5.6
California 6.7 6.2 5.6 5.7 5.5 5.4 5.2 5.0 3.9
Colorado 8.0 7.2 6.8 6.2 6.6 6.1 5.8 4.9 3.5
Connecticut 9.0 8.4 7.7 7.9 7.5 7.7 7.5 6.3 4.1
Delaware 7.1 7.6 6.9 6.0 5.2 7.8 4.8 4.1 2.6
District of Columbia 10.7 11.2 10.9 11.1 12.5 9.3 11.5 10.9 7.1
Florida 8.4 7.6 6.8 6.9 6.6 6.6 6.1 5.1 4.2
Georgia 8.0 7.7 6.7 6.3 6.5 6.6 6.7 5.6 3.1
Hawaii 5.0 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.7 3.4 4.1 2.4 2.0
Idaho 3.4 3.1 2.7 2.3 2.6 3.4 3.1 1.9 1.8
Illinois 9.2 8.3 7.6 7.5 6.5 6.2 5.9 4.8 3.5
Indiana 16.0 13.7 13.0 12.9 13.6 13.1 12.5 9.5 6.6
Iowa 9.6 9.3 9.1 7.0 8.2 6.6 6.6 5.1 2.8
Kansas 3.8 3.5 2.9 2.7 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.5 1.6
Kentucky 17.9 15.0 15.0 14.2 13.4 13.7 12.8 10.9 7.8
Louisiana 7.9 7.0 6.6 6.7 7.3 6.8 6.0 5.4 2.9
Maine 13.0 11.8 10.5 8.5 9.0 8.2 6.6 4.1 2.8
Maryland 4.6 4.6 4.3 3.9 4.7 5.1 4.7 4.2 3.2
Massachusetts 21.8 20.8 18.8 17.2 17.0 16.2 15.6 13.6 10.8
Michigan 14.3 12.8 11.6 11.5 11.5 11.6 10.5 8.6 5.7
Minnesota 6.5 5.4 4.7 4.4 4.9 4.4 3.7 2.9 2.1
Mississippi 13.0 11.6 10.4 11.1 11.6 12.1 11.9 9.1 6.0
Missouri 3.7 4.2 3.5 2.8 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.1 1.4
Montana 11.8 11.5 9.3 9.5 10.4 7.4 8.4 5.1 3.2
Nebraska 4.7 4.5 3.9 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.7 2.9 1.9
Nevada 5.9 5.1 5.3 4.4 4.4 4.8 3.9 3.6 2.7
New Hampshire 2.8 2.3 2.7 3.2 2.2 2.5 1.9 2.2 1.0
New Jersey 3.9 3.7 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.2 2.9 2.5 2.0
New Mexico 14.3 14.1 12.3 11.5 11.1 10.9 8.9 9.0 5.0
New York 15.4 13.5 13.6 12.8 14.0 14.6 15.0 13.5 7.5
North Carolina 2.8 2.9 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.5 2.6 2.0 0.8
North Dakota 10.9 8.0 9.5 9.3 5.8 7.6 7.9 7.1 3.5
Ohio 7.9 7.4 7.0 7.2 7.2 7.8 7.3 5.7 4.3
Oklahoma 13.3 11.9 10.1 9.6 8.9 8.1 7.7 6.4 4.1
Oregon 12.5 11.0 11.2 11.3 10.5 9.7 9.0 7.1 5.5
Pennsylvania 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.6 2.0 2.3 1.9 1.8 1.3
Puerto Rico - - - - - - - - -
Rhode Island 13.1 11.8 8.5 9.9 9.2 8.7 7.9 7.4 4.7
South Carolina 14.3 13.4 11.6 10.5 10.9 11.1 9.5 8.5 3.2
South Dakota 4.2 4.7 3.8 4.2 3.6 4.0 3.1 2.8 1.3
Tennessee 5.3 4.9 5.0 5.8 5.3 5.2 5.1 4.5 3.3
Texas 6.5 5.6 5.1 4.8 4.7 4.5 4.1 3.5 1.8
Utah 9.4 9.0 8.4 8.8 9.8 10.2 10.1 9.8 7.7
Vermont 5.4 5.7 3.8 6.3 6.5 9.9 7.4 6.4 3.8
Virginia 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.1 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.5
Washington 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.3
West Virginia 14.6 12.6 11.7 11.6 10.3 10.5 8.9 7.9 4.9
Wisconsin 3.4 3.5 3.0 2.3 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.1 1.3
Wyoming 6.6 7.4 5.2 5.4 6.5 5.9 4.2 3.9 2.3
National 8.1 7.4 6.8 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.4 5.5 3.6

Table 3–6 Victims by Sex, 2016
Boy Rate per Girl Rate per
State Boy Victims Girl Victims Unknown Victims Total Victims 1,000 Children 1,000 Children
Alabama 4,729 5,410 18 10,157 8.5 10.1
Alaska 1,541 1,583 18 3,142 16.0 17.4
Arizona 5,548 5,266 27 10,841 6.7 6.6
Arkansas 4,463 5,240 4 9,707 12.4 15.2
California 33,548 35,072 43 68,663 7.2 7.9
Colorado 5,441 5,785 - 11,226 8.4 9.4
Connecticut 3,820 3,928 55 7,803 9.9 10.7
Delaware 787 785 - 1,572 7.6 7.8
District of Columbia 689 676 1 1,366 11.3 11.2
Florida 20,496 20,984 414 41,894 9.7 10.3
Georgia 10,702 10,909 24 21,635 8.4 8.8
Hawaii 731 750 10 1,491 4.6 5.0
Idaho 925 922 - 1,847 4.1 4.3
Illinois 14,300 14,652 107 29,059 9.6 10.2
Indiana 13,878 14,547 5 28,430 17.2 18.9
Iowa 4,226 4,321 8 8,555 11.3 12.1
Kansas 1,054 1,349 - 2,403 2.9 3.9
Kentucky 9,817 9,955 238 20,010 19.0 20.2
Louisiana 5,395 5,802 92 11,289 9.5 10.6
Maine 1,718 1,728 - 3,446 13.1 14.0
Maryland 3,130 3,844 19 6,993 4.6 5.8
Massachusetts 15,778 15,580 735 32,093 22.4 23.1
Michigan 18,821 18,452 20 37,293 16.8 17.2
Minnesota 3,839 4,102 - 7,941 5.8 6.5
Mississippi 4,872 5,271 36 10,179 13.3 14.9
Missouri 2,475 3,006 - 5,481 3.5 4.4
Montana 1,538 1,564 14 3,116 13.2 14.1
Nebraska 1,386 1,396 1 2,783 5.7 6.0
Nevada 2,433 2,455 3 4,891 7.0 7.4
New Hampshire 435 470 - 905 3.3 3.7
New Jersey 3,952 4,298 14 8,264 3.9 4.4
New Mexico 3,778 3,727 21 7,526 15.1 15.5
New York 32,558 32,328 237 65,123 15.2 15.8
North Carolina 3,435 3,699 - 7,134 2.9 3.3
North Dakota 905 896 4 1,805 10.0 10.4
Ohio 10,878 12,725 32 23,635 8.1 10.0
Oklahoma 7,114 7,194 - 14,308 14.5 15.3
Oregon 5,830 6,012 9 11,851 13.1 14.2
Pennsylvania 1,669 2,686 - 4,355 1.2 2.1
Rhode Island 1,506 1,443 6 2,955 14.1 14.2
South Carolina 8,602 8,509 220 17,331 15.4 15.8
South Dakota 625 618 3 1,246 5.7 6.0
Tennessee 4,209 5,417 39 9,665 5.5 7.4
Texas 27,502 29,718 154 57,374 7.4 8.3
Utah 4,425 5,184 5 9,614 9.4 11.6
Vermont 331 491 - 822 5.4 8.6
Virginia 2,959 2,978 4 5,941 3.1 3.3
Washington 2,287 2,425 13 4,725 2.7 3.0
West Virginia 2,962 2,948 28 5,938 15.4 16.1
Wisconsin 2,199 2,594 29 4,822 3.3 4.1
Wyoming 466 509 2 977 6.5 7.6
National 326,707 342,203 2,712 671,622 8.7 9.5
Reporting States 51 51 39 51 - -

Table 3–7 Victims by Race and Ethnicity, 2016 (continues next page)
American
African- Indian or
State American Alaska Native Asian Hispanic Multiple Race Pacific Islander White Unknown Total
Alabama 2,783 18 20 438 341 6 6,423 128 10,157
Alaska 50 1,585 28 99 368 66 555 391 3,142
Arizona 1,014 526 40 3,994 458 26 3,791 992 10,841
Arkansas 1,569 22 14 588 710 45 6,682 77 9,707
California 9,324 644 1,660 38,310 1,409 222 14,119 2,975 68,663
Colorado 994 82 78 4,161 520 25 5,200 166 11,226
Connecticut 1,606 11 46 2,815 442 2 2,660 221 7,803
Delaware 666 2 14 216 49 1 616 8 1,572
District of Columbia 849 1 2 183 6 - 9 316 1,366
Florida 12,464 44 157 7,533 1,910 17 18,112 1,657 41,894
Georgia 8,108 7 72 1,509 925 5 10,766 243 21,635
Hawaii 34 3 120 29 679 334 235 57 1,491
Idaho 17 37 2 186 15 7 1,492 91 1,847
Illinois 9,116 24 245 5,204 571 15 13,733 151 29,059
Indiana 4,720 16 51 2,307 1,997 16 19,291 32 28,430
Iowa 1,065 125 64 907 315 13 5,940 126 8,555
Kansas 209 14 6 301 168 1 1,687 17 2,403
Kentucky 2,011 8 41 814 1,004 5 15,204 923 20,010
Louisiana 4,972 25 23 323 290 2 5,378 276 11,289
Maine 52 18 11 188 107 1 2,095 974 3,446
Maryland 3,001 8 50 592 160 9 2,196 977 6,993
Massachusetts 3,933 57 449 8,907 1,355 8 12,445 4,939 32,093
Michigan 9,403 146 102 2,678 3,151 3 19,460 2,350 37,293
Minnesota 1,684 560 273 949 1,175 10 3,116 174 7,941
Mississippi 3,771 15 10 216 179 2 5,664 322 10,179
Missouri 919 11 15 239 86 10 3,787 414 5,481
Montana 56 545 1 155 178 1 2,099 81 3,116
Nebraska 394 164 19 538 168 1 1,391 108 2,783
Nevada 1,090 30 39 1,248 317 36 1,758 373 4,891
New Hampshire 21 - 5 48 30 - 719 82 905
New Jersey 2,505 7 107 2,379 200 3 2,876 187 8,264
New Mexico 158 591 2 4,742 134 3 1,622 274 7,526
New York 17,331 262 1,204 15,878 2,438 16 20,814 7,180 65,123
North Carolina 1,970 156 45 805 387 11 3,647 113 7,134
North Dakota 97 383 - 116 129 7 983 90 1,805
Ohio 5,759 10 40 1,277 2,073 8 14,153 315 23,635
Oklahoma 1,256 999 14 2,430 4,099 6 5,499 5 14,308
Oregon 462 307 87 1,527 436 78 7,358 1,596 11,851
Pennsylvania 989 2 12 401 300 1 2,539 111 4,355
Puerto Rico - - - - - - - - -
Rhode Island 342 8 34 799 249 2 1,392 129 2,955
South Carolina 6,431 33 23 838 618 8 8,656 724 17,331
South Dakota 41 539 2 62 131 - 435 36 1,246
Tennessee - - - - - - - - -
Texas 9,981 57 286 25,014 2,172 33 18,576 1,255 57,374
Utah 303 192 64 1,817 174 117 6,864 83 9,614
Vermont 16 1 2 5 2 - 730 66 822
Virginia 1,729 5 41 643 312 15 2,981 215 5,941
Washington 372 270 56 743 495 55 2,484 250 4,725
West Virginia 200 1 - 71 392 1 5,233 40 5,938
Wisconsin 956 254 71 509 255 3 2,691 83 4,822
Wyoming 15 36 - 137 12 - 754 23 977
National 136,808 8,861 5,747 145,868 34,091 1,256 296,910 32,416 661,957
Reporting States 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

Table 3–7 Victims by Race and Ethnicity, 2016
American
African- Indian or
American Alaska Native Hispanic Rate Multiple Race Pacific Islander
Rate per 1,000 Rate per 1,000 Asian Rate per per 1,000 Rate per 1,000 Rate per 1,000 White Rate per
State Children Children 1,000 Children Children Children Children 1,000 Children
Alabama 8.6 3.4 1.3 5.5 10.0 9.0 10.1
Alaska 8.3 47.0 2.6 5.6 15.9 20.1 6.0
Arizona 13.3 6.3 0.9 5.6 7.3 9.1 5.9
Arkansas 12.4 4.4 1.3 7.0 27.7 14.8 14.9
California 19.6 19.2 1.6 8.1 3.3 6.8 6.0
Colorado 18.5 10.8 2.1 10.6 9.7 13.9 7.3
Connecticut 18.8 5.1 1.2 15.9 15.4 6.5 6.3
Delaware 12.9 3.8 1.8 6.8 4.6 10.4 6.0
District of Columbia 12.7 5.6 0.7 9.3 1.3 - 0.3
Florida 14.8 4.7 1.4 6.0 12.7 6.1 10.2
Georgia 9.6 1.5 0.8 4.2 10.3 3.1 9.7
Hawaii 5.9 6.0 1.6 0.5 7.2 9.5 5.5
Idaho 4.4 7.4 0.4 2.3 1.0 8.8 4.5
Illinois 20.3 6.1 1.7 7.2 5.9 18.3 9.1
Indiana 27.0 5.4 1.5 13.5 31.9 26.8 17.1
Iowa 29.7 48.8 3.4 12.6 11.4 12.7 10.4
Kansas 4.6 2.6 0.3 2.3 4.6 1.5 3.5
Kentucky 21.7 4.7 2.5 13.6 24.6 7.0 19.0
Louisiana 12.1 3.4 1.3 4.5 8.6 4.5 9.4
Maine 7.6 9.0 2.8 27.8 11.5 8.7 9.3
Maryland 7.2 2.7 0.6 3.0 2.4 14.8 3.8
Massachusetts 33.8 22.7 4.8 36.2 25.5 13.2 14.4
Michigan 26.9 11.2 1.5 14.9 31.1 5.3 13.2
Minnesota 14.8 30.6 3.5 8.4 18.5 13.9 3.5
Mississippi 12.3 3.5 1.5 6.8 10.4 8.4 15.9
Missouri 4.9 2.0 0.6 2.6 1.4 3.9 3.7
Montana 36.8 24.8 0.7 11.5 16.8 5.7 11.8
Nebraska 14.5 30.7 1.6 6.6 9.1 2.4 4.2
Nevada 16.8 5.5 1.0 4.5 7.4 8.0 7.2
New Hampshire 4.9 - 0.6 3.1 3.4 - 3.2
New Jersey 9.3 2.3 0.6 4.6 3.3 4.1 3.1
New Mexico 20.2 11.9 0.4 16.1 10.9 11.9 13.5
New York 26.9 20.0 3.6 15.5 16.8 8.8 10.3
North Carolina 3.7 5.6 0.6 2.2 4.1 5.2 3.0
North Dakota 14.8 27.6 - 10.8 18.1 59.8 7.3
Ohio 14.9 2.4 0.7 8.2 17.1 6.2 7.5
Oklahoma 16.3 10.6 0.7 15.2 44.8 3.0 10.6
Oregon 23.3 29.4 2.5 8.0 8.4 17.9 13.2
Pennsylvania 2.8 0.5 0.1 1.3 2.9 1.1 1.4
Puerto Rico - - - - - - -
Rhode Island 22.5 6.9 4.6 15.6 26.0 12.0 11.3
South Carolina 19.3 8.8 1.4 8.5 14.8 11.4 14.4
South Dakota 7.4 19.8 0.6 4.6 13.8 - 2.8
Tennessee - - - - - - -
Texas 11.7 3.1 0.9 7.0 11.8 5.4 8.0
Utah 28.1 21.7 4.0 11.3 5.5 12.2 10.0
Vermont 6.9 3.0 0.8 1.6 0.5 - 6.9
Virginia 4.6 1.2 0.3 2.6 3.0 11.1 2.9
Washington 5.3 11.5 0.5 2.2 3.9 4.0 2.7
West Virginia 14.6 1.7 - 7.8 26.5 12.5 15.7
Wisconsin 8.6 18.2 1.5 3.4 5.2 5.5 2.9
Wyoming 10.8 8.9 - 6.8 2.7 - 7.0
National 13.9 14.2 1.6 8.0 11.2 8.6 8.1
Reporting States - - - - - - -

Table 3–8 Maltreatment Types of Victims, 2016 (continues next page)
Total
Psychological Maltreatment
State Victims Medical Neglect Neglect Other Physical Abuse Maltreatment Sexual Abuse Unknown Types
Alabama 10,157 77 4,102 - 5,408 34 1,558 - 11,179
Alaska 3,142 73 2,408 - 376 992 181 - 4,030
Arizona 10,841 - 10,055 - 895 11 380 - 11,341
Arkansas 9,707 1,315 5,467 4 2,033 119 1,980 - 10,918
California 68,663 140 59,125 307 5,936 8,033 3,617 - 77,158
Colorado 11,226 184 9,035 - 1,289 318 1,067 37 11,930
Connecticut 7,803 232 6,626 7 520 2,308 367 - 10,060
Delaware 1,572 24 451 206 302 605 141 - 1,729
District of Columbia 1,366 - 1,167 2 262 - 72 - 1,503
Florida 41,894 1,059 23,546 19,317 3,645 497 2,617 - 50,681
Georgia 21,635 491 16,421 - 2,219 4,433 876 - 24,440
Hawaii 1,491 15 213 1,307 154 12 74 - 1,775
Idaho 1,847 5 1,463 15 389 - 69 - 1,941
Illinois 29,059 613 20,216 - 6,492 28 4,345 - 31,694
Indiana 28,430 - 25,343 - 2,058 - 2,599 - 30,000
Iowa 8,555 84 7,055 32 1,185 62 570 - 8,988
Kansas 2,403 59 397 685 532 346 646 - 2,665
Kentucky 20,010 467 18,695 - 1,569 42 779 - 21,552
Louisiana 11,289 - 9,684 - 1,698 48 602 1 12,033
Maine 3,446 - 2,181 - 1,064 1,153 278 - 4,676
Maryland 6,993 - 4,187 - 1,597 14 1,697 - 7,495
Massachusetts 32,093 - 30,449 18 2,858 30 763 - 34,118
Michigan 37,293 781 30,048 11 8,779 156 1,133 - 40,908
Minnesota 7,941 70 4,969 - 2,543 70 1,289 - 8,941
Mississippi 10,179 383 7,822 26 1,522 1,339 1,005 - 12,097
Missouri 5,481 202 3,422 - 1,669 580 1,326 - 7,199
Montana 3,116 4 3,007 5 129 59 96 - 3,300
Nebraska 2,783 - 2,393 - 333 28 177 - 2,931
Nevada 4,891 89 3,927 - 1,283 24 270 - 5,593
New Hampshire 905 24 780 - 76 14 79 - 973
New Jersey 8,264 154 6,587 - 1,113 46 824 - 8,724
New Mexico 7,526 277 6,128 - 934 1,768 195 - 9,302
New York 65,123 3,820 62,150 18,074 6,246 470 2,087 - 92,847
North Carolina 7,134 31 3,776 87 1,790 76 1,378 64 7,202
North Dakota 1,805 42 1,380 - 176 582 52 - 2,232
Ohio 23,635 428 10,481 - 10,733 796 4,501 - 26,939
Oklahoma 14,308 204 11,318 - 2,095 3,637 643 - 17,897
Oregon 11,851 149 6,277 5,770 1,266 248 1,055 - 14,765
Pennsylvania 4,355 201 256 59 1,831 71 2,092 - 4,510
Puerto Rico - - - - - - - - -
Rhode Island 2,955 50 1,609 65 422 1,122 130 - 3,398
South Carolina 17,331 367 10,345 119 9,165 144 762 - 20,902
South Dakota 1,246 - 1,117 - 140 28 56 - 1,341
Tennessee 9,665 146 2,530 - 5,870 268 2,648 - 11,462
Texas 57,374 1,203 47,293 1 8,311 336 5,695 3 62,842
Utah 9,614 34 2,755 159 4,364 2,853 1,671 - 11,836
Vermont 822 11 12 - 436 1 379 - 839
Virginia 5,941 161 3,766 3 1,842 78 697 - 6,547
Washington 4,725 - 3,681 - 1,026 - 474 - 5,181
West Virginia 5,938 356 2,535 1 4,624 3,731 257 - 11,504
Wisconsin 4,822 - 3,235 - 838 22 1,002 - 5,097
Wyoming 977 3 730 9 30 227 78 - 1,077
National 671,622 14,028 502,615 46,289 122,067 37,859 57,329 105 780,292

Table 3–8 Maltreatment Types of Victims, 2016
Psychological Total
Medical Neglect Physical Abuse Maltreatment Sexual Abuse Unknown Maltreatment
State Percent Neglect Percent Other Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Types Percent
Alabama 0.8 40.4 - 53.2 0.3 15.3 - 110.1
Alaska 2.3 76.6 - 12.0 31.6 5.8 - 128.3
Arizona - 92.7 - 8.3 0.1 3.5 - 104.6
Arkansas 13.5 56.3 0.0 20.9 1.2 20.4 - 112.5
California 0.2 86.1 0.4 8.6 11.7 5.3 - 112.4
Colorado 1.6 80.5 - 11.5 2.8 9.5 0.3 106.3
Connecticut 3.0 84.9 0.1 6.7 29.6 4.7 - 128.9
Delaware 1.5 28.7 13.1 19.2 38.5 9.0 - 110.0
District of Columbia - 85.4 0.1 19.2 - 5.3 - 110.0
Florida 2.5 56.2 46.1 8.7 1.2 6.2 - 121.0
Georgia 2.3 75.9 - 10.3 20.5 4.0 - 113.0
Hawaii 1.0 14.3 87.7 10.3 0.8 5.0 - 119.0
Idaho 0.3 79.2 0.8 21.1 - 3.7 - 105.1
Illinois 2.1 69.6 0.0 22.3 0.1 15.0 - 109.1
Indiana - 89.1 0.0 7.2 - 9.1 - 105.5
Iowa 1.0 82.5 0.4 13.9 0.7 6.7 - 105.1
Kansas 2.5 16.5 28.5 22.1 14.4 26.9 - 110.9
Kentucky 2.3 93.4 - 7.8 0.2 3.9 - 107.7
Louisiana - 85.8 - 15.0 0.4 5.3 0.0 106.6
Maine - 63.3 - 30.9 33.5 8.1 - 135.7
Maryland - 59.9 - 22.8 0.2 24.3 - 107.2
Massachusetts - 94.9 0.1 8.9 0.1 2.4 - 106.3
Michigan 2.1 80.6 0.0 23.5 0.4 3.0 - 109.7
Minnesota 0.9 62.6 - 32.0 0.9 16.2 - 112.6
Mississippi 3.8 76.8 0.3 15.0 13.2 9.9 - 118.8
Missouri 3.7 62.4 - 30.5 10.6 24.2 - 131.3
Montana 0.1 96.5 0.2 4.1 1.9 3.1 - 105.9
Nebraska - 86.0 - 12.0 1.0 6.4 - 105.3
Nevada 1.8 80.3 - 26.2 0.5 5.5 - 114.4
New Hampshire 2.7 86.2 - 8.4 1.5 8.7 - 107.5
New Jersey 1.9 79.7 - 13.5 0.6 10.0 - 105.6
New Mexico 3.7 81.4 - 12.4 23.5 2.6 - 123.6
New York 5.9 95.4 27.8 9.6 0.7 3.2 - 142.6
North Carolina 0.4 52.9 1.2 25.1 1.1 19.3 0.9 101.0
North Dakota 2.3 76.5 - 9.8 32.2 2.9 - 123.7
Ohio 1.8 44.3 - 45.4 3.4 19.0 - 114.0
Oklahoma 1.4 79.1 - 14.6 25.4 4.5 - 125.1
Oregon 1.3 53.0 48.7 10.7 2.1 8.9 - 124.6
Pennsylvania 4.6 5.9 1.4 42.0 1.6 48.0 - 103.6
Puerto Rico - - - - - - - -
Rhode Island 1.7 54.5 2.2 14.3 38.0 4.4 - 115.0
South Carolina 2.1 59.7 0.7 52.9 0.8 4.4 - 120.6
South Dakota - 89.6 - 11.2 2.2 4.5 - 107.6
Tennessee 1.5 26.2 - 60.7 2.8 27.4 - 118.6
Texas 2.1 82.4 0.0 14.5 0.6 9.9 0.0 109.5
Utah 0.4 28.7 1.7 45.4 29.7 17.4 - 123.1
Vermont 1.3 1.5 - 53.0 0.1 46.1 - 102.1
Virginia 2.7 63.4 0.1 31.0 1.3 11.7 - 110.2
Washington - 77.9 - 21.7 - 10.0 - 109.7
West Virginia 6.0 42.7 0.0 77.9 62.8 4.3 - 193.7
Wisconsin - 67.1 - 17.4 0.5 20.8 - 105.7
Wyoming 0.3 74.7 0.9 3.1 23.2 8.0 - 110.2
National 2.1 74.8 6.9 18.2 5.6 8.5 0.0 116.2
Reporting States - - - - - - - -

Table 3–9 Maltreatment Type Combinations, 2016
MALTREATMENT TYPE COMBINATIONS Maltreatment Type Maltreatment Type Percent
SINGLE TYPE - -
Neglect includes Medical Neglect 423,007 63.0

Other/Unknown 20,258 3.0
Physical Abuse 74,548 11.1
Psychological or Emotional Maltreatment 15,504 2.3
Sexual Abuse 44,468 6.6
TWO TYPES - -
Neglect and "Other"/Unknown 23,182 3.5
Neglect and Physical Abuse 34,606 5.2
Neglect and Psychological Maltreatment1 12,858 1.9
Neglect and Sexual Abuse2 9,079 1.4
Physical Abuse and "Other"/Unknown 681 0.1
Physical Abuse and Psychological Maltreatment3 5,109 0.8
Physical Abuse and Sexual Abuse4 1,430 0.2
Sexual Abuse and Psychological Maltreatment5 425 0.1
THREE TYPES - -
Neglect, Physical Abuse, and Psychological Maltreatment 3,176 0.5
Neglect, Physical Abuse, and "Other"/Unknown 1,207 0.2
Neglect, Physical Abuse, and Sexual Abuse6 980 0.1
REMAINING COMBINATIONS 1,104 0.2
National 671,622 100.0
Based on data from 51 states.

1 Includes 155 victims with a combination of Neglect, Psychological Maltreatment, and “Other”/Unknown.
2 Includes 359 victims with a combination of Neglect, Sexual Abuse, and “Other”/Unknown.
3 Includes 24 victims with a combination of Physical Abuse, Psychological Maltreatment, and “Other”/Unknown.
4 Includes 26 victims with a combination of Physical Abuse, Sexual Abuse, and “Other”/Unknown.
5 Includes 9 victims with a combination of Sexual Abuse, Psychological Maltreatment, and “Other”/Unknown.
6 Includes 1 victim with a combination of Neglect, Physical Abuse, Sexual Abuse, and “Other”/Unknown

Table 3–10 Victims With Alcohol Abuse Caregiver Risk Factor, 2014–2016
2014 Victims 2015 Victims 2016 Victims
2014 Victims 2015 Victims 2016 Victims With an With an With an
With an With an With an Alcohol Abuse Alcohol Abuse Alcohol Abuse
Alcohol Abuse Alcohol Abuse Alcohol Abuse Caregiver Caregiver Caregiver
Caregiver Caregiver Caregiver Risk Factor Risk Factor Risk Factor
State 2014 Victims 2015 Victims 2016 Victims Risk Factor Risk Factor Risk Factor Percent Percent Percent
Alabama - - - - - - - - -
Alaska 2,484 2,898 3,142 427 535 705 17.2 18.5 22.4
Arizona 13,885 11,955 10,841 2,147 1,804 1,495 15.5 15.1 13.8
Arkansas - - - - - - - - -
California - - - - - - - - -
Colorado - - - - - - - - -
Connecticut - - 7,803 - - 319 - - 4.1
Delaware 1,482 1,538 1,572 536 564 623 36.2 36.7 39.6
District of Columbia - - - - - - - - -
Florida - - - - - - - - -
Georgia 22,163 26,952 21,635 1,732 904 507 7.8 3.4 2.3
Hawaii 1,331 1,506 1,491 156 177 183 11.7 11.8 12.3
Idaho - - - - - - - - -
Illinois - - - - - - - - -
Indiana 23,334 26,397 28,430 1,013 1,124 1,154 4.3 4.3 4.1
Iowa - - - - - - - - -
Kansas - - - - - - - - -
Kentucky 17,932 18,897 20,010 2,343 3,125 3,079 13.1 16.5 15.4
Louisiana - - - - - - - - -
Maine 3,823 3,372 3,446 731 660 611 19.1 19.6 17.7
Maryland - - - - - - - - -
Massachusetts - - - - - - - - -
Michigan 30,705 34,729 37,293 719 1,025 2,927 2.3 3.0 7.8
Minnesota 4,143 5,120 7,941 677 777 1,254 16.3 15.2 15.8
Mississippi 8,435 8,730 10,179 235 346 746 2.8 4.0 7.3
Missouri 5,322 5,699 5,481 553 473 467 10.4 8.3 8.5
Montana 1,191 1,868 3,116 63 102 176 5.3 5.5 5.6
Nebraska - 3,483 2,783 - 206 265 - 5.9 9.5
Nevada - - - - - - - - -
New Hampshire 646 745 905 73 88 106 11.3 11.8 11.7
New Jersey 11,586 9,689 8,264 1,752 1,527 1,201 15.1 15.8 14.5
New Mexico 7,606 8,701 7,526 2,843 3,262 2,684 37.4 37.5 35.7
New York - - - - - - - - -
North Carolina - - - - - - - - -
North Dakota 1,612 1,760 1,805 499 604 519 31.0 34.3 28.8
Ohio - 23,006 23,635 - 880 1,261 - 3.8 5.3
Oklahoma 13,183 14,449 14,308 2,233 2,761 2,392 16.9 19.1 16.7
Oregon 10,088 10,428 11,851 4,247 4,628 5,719 42.1 44.4 48.3
Pennsylvania - - - - - - - - -
Puerto Rico 7,683 6,950 - 661 566 - 8.6 8.1 -
Rhode Island 3,410 3,183 2,955 145 94 511 4.3 3.0 17.3
South Carolina - - - - - - - - -
South Dakota 886 1,073 1,246 313 355 473 35.3 33.1 38.0
Tennessee - - - - - - - - -
Texas 65,334 63,781 57,374 5,591 4,990 4,338 8.6 7.8 7.6
Utah 9,876 9,569 9,614 544 515 631 5.5 5.4 6.6
Vermont - - - - - - - - -
Virginia - - - - - - - - -
Washington 7,341 5,894 4,725 2,275 1,636 1,347 31.0 27.8 28.5
West Virginia - - 5,938 - - 661 - - 11.1
Wisconsin 4,642 4,840 4,822 209 177 225 4.5 3.7 4.7
Wyoming 861 968 977 217 226 240 25.2 23.3 24.6
National 280,984 318,180 321,108 32,934 34,131 36,819 11.7 10.7 11.5
Reporting States 27 29 30 27 29 30 - - -

Table 3–11 Victims With Drug Abuse Caregiver Risk Factor, 2014–2016
2014 Victims 2015 Victims 2016 Victims
2014 Victims 2015 Victims 2016 Victims With Drug With Drug With Drug
With Drug With Drug With Drug Abuse Abuse Abuse
Abuse Abuse Abuse Caregiver Caregiver Caregiver
Caregiver Caregiver Caregiver Risk Factor Risk Factor Risk Factor
State 2014 Victims 2015 Victims 2016 Victims Risk Factor Risk Factor Risk Factor Percent Percent Percent
Alabama 8,697 8,466 10,157 478 465 565 5.5 5.5 5.6
Alaska 2,484 2,898 3,142 212 297 354 8.5 10.2 11.3
Arizona 13,885 11,955 10,841 7,366 6,156 5,371 53.1 51.5 49.5
Arkansas 8,971 9,204 9,707 278 257 274 3.1 2.8 2.8
California - - - - - - - - -
Colorado - - - - - - - - -
Connecticut - - 7,803 - - 323 - - 4.1
Delaware 1,482 1,538 1,572 489 533 584 33.0 34.7 37.2
District of Columbia - - - - - - - - -
Florida - - - - - - - - -
Georgia 22,163 26,952 21,635 5,870 4,068 2,988 26.5 15.1 13.8
Hawaii 1,331 1,506 1,491 543 695 706 40.8 46.1 47.4
Idaho - - - - - - - - -
Illinois - - - - - - - - -
Indiana 23,334 26,397 28,430 4,270 4,961 6,528 18.3 18.8 23.0
Iowa - - - - - - - - -
Kansas - - - - - - - - -
Kentucky 17,932 18,897 20,010 6,275 8,897 10,181 35.0 47.1 50.9
Louisiana - - - - - - - - -
Maine 3,823 3,372 3,446 1,276 1,084 1,154 33.4 32.1 33.5
Maryland 9,119 6,790 6,993 424 383 377 4.6 5.6 5.4
Massachusetts - - - - - - - - -
Michigan - - 37,293 - - 6,314 - - 16.9
Minnesota 4,143 5,120 7,941 964 1,227 1,750 23.3 24.0 22.0
Mississippi 8,435 8,730 10,179 689 1,729 4,270 8.2 19.8 41.9
Missouri 5,322 5,699 5,481 990 1,476 1,490 18.6 25.9 27.2
Montana 1,191 1,868 3,116 258 420 723 21.7 22.5 23.2
Nebraska 3,940 3,483 2,783 249 565 794 6.3 16.2 28.5
Nevada - - - - - - - - -
New Hampshire 646 745 905 152 246 370 23.5 33.0 40.9
New Jersey 11,586 9,689 8,264 3,644 3,033 2,531 31.5 31.3 30.6
New Mexico 7,606 8,701 7,526 5,002 5,633 5,020 65.8 64.7 66.7
New York - - - - - - - - -
North Carolina - - - - - - - - -
North Dakota 1,612 1,760 1,805 794 851 994 49.3 48.4 55.1
Ohio 24,936 23,006 23,635 9,577 9,907 11,104 38.4 43.1 47.0
Oklahoma 13,183 14,449 14,308 6,015 6,693 7,000 45.6 46.3 48.9
Oregon 10,088 10,428 11,851 4,863 5,197 5,810 48.2 49.8 49.0
Pennsylvania - 3,629 4,355 - 82 135 - 2.3 3.1
Puerto Rico 7,683 6,950 - 565 520 - 7.4 7.5 -
Rhode Island 3,410 3,183 2,955 323 198 543 9.5 6.2 18.4
South Carolina - - - - - - - - -
South Dakota 886 1,073 1,246 324 488 598 36.6 45.5 48.0
Tennessee 11,695 11,362 9,665 1,229 1,254 1,400 10.5 11.0 14.5
Texas 65,334 63,781 57,374 18,884 17,332 15,305 28.9 27.2 26.7
Utah 9,876 9,569 9,614 926 899 1,311 9.4 9.4 13.6
Vermont - - - - - - - - -
Virginia - - - - - - - - -
Washington 7,341 5,894 4,725 3,420 2,724 2,293 46.6 46.2 48.5
West Virginia 4,962 - 5,938 357 - 3,107 7.2 - 52.3
Wisconsin 4,642 4,840 4,822 330 329 376 7.1 6.8 7.8
Wyoming 861 968 977 367 432 452 42.6 44.6 46.3
National 322,599 322,902 361,985 87,403 89,031 103,095 27.1 27.6 28.5
Reporting States 33 33 35 33 33 35 - - -

Table 3–12 Victims With Financial Problem Caregiver
Risk Factor, 2016
Victims With Financial Victims With Financial
Problem Caregiver Risk Problem Caregiver Risk
State Victims Factor Factor Percent
Alabama - - -
Alaska - - -
Arizona 10,841 5,626 51.9
Arkansas 9,707 1,394 14.4
California - - -
Colorado - - -
Connecticut 7,803 455 5.8
Delaware 1,572 39 2.5
District of Columbia - - -
Florida 41,894 14,866 35.5
Georgia 21,635 664 3.1
Hawaii 1,491 40 2.7
Idaho - - -
Illinois 29,059 652 2.2
Indiana 28,430 5,207 18.3
Iowa 8,555 315 3.7
Kansas - - -
Kentucky - - -
Louisiana - - -
Maine - - -
Maryland 6,993 2,554 36.5
Massachusetts - - -
Michigan 37,293 1,054 2.8
Minnesota 7,941 1,434 18.1
Mississippi 10,179 1,339 13.2
Missouri 5,481 1,284 23.4
Montana - - -
Nebraska 2,783 107 3.8
Nevada - - -
New Hampshire - - -
New Jersey 8,264 1,465 17.7
New Mexico 7,526 551 7.3
New York - - -
North Dakota 1,805 511 28.3
Ohio 23,635 4,721 20.0
Oklahoma 14,308 1,033 7.2
Oregon 11,851 3,225 27.2
Pennsylvania - - -
Puerto Rico - - -
Rhode Island 2,955 205 6.9
South Carolina 17,331 3,905 22.5
South Dakota 1,246 492 39.5
Tennessee - - -
Texas 57,374 4,942 8.6
Utah 9,614 1,993 20.7
Vermont - - -
Virginia - - -
Washington 4,725 1,059 22.4
West Virginia - - -
Wisconsin 4,822 202 4.2
Wyoming 977 220 22.5
National 398,090 61,554 15.5

Table 3–13 Victims With Inadequate Housing Caregiver
Risk Factor, 2016
Victims With Inadequate Victims With Inadequate
Housing Caregiver Risk Housing Caregiver Risk
State Victims Factor Factor Percent
Alabama 10,157 616 6.1
Alaska 3,142 82 2.6
Arizona 10,841 3,673 33.9
Arkansas 9,707 509 5.2
California - - -
Colorado - - -
Delaware 1,572 37 2.4
District of Columbia 1,366 229 16.8
Florida 41,894 3,097 7.4
Georgia 21,635 907 4.2
Hawaii 1,491 122 8.2
Idaho - - -
Illinois - - -
Indiana 28,430 2,635 9.3
Iowa 8,555 192 2.2
Kansas - - -
Kentucky 20,010 3,719 18.6
Louisiana - - -
Maine 3,446 362 10.5
Maryland 6,993 253 3.6
Massachusetts 32,093 1,427 4.4
Michigan 37,293 1,283 3.4
Minnesota 7,941 1,252 15.8
Mississippi 10,179 2,107 20.7
Missouri 5,481 1,430 26.1
Montana - - -
Nebraska - - -
Nevada - - -
New Hampshire 905 75 8.3
New Jersey 8,264 778 9.4
New Mexico 7,526 323 4.3
New York - - -
Ohio 23,635 3,210 13.6
Oklahoma - - -
Oregon 11,851 1,481 12.5
Pennsylvania - - -
Puerto Rico - - -
South Dakota 1,246 253 20.3
Tennessee 9,665 342 3.5
Texas - - -
Utah 9,614 1,523 15.8
Vermont - - -
Virginia - - -
Washington 4,725 1,116 23.6
West Virginia - - -
Wisconsin 4,822 352 7.3
Wyoming 977 158 16.2
National 375,350 37,517 10.0

Table 3–14 Victims <1–11 Months With Alcohol Abuse Child Risk Factor, 2012–2016
Victim 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
VICTIM BY AGE - - - - -
<1 Month 17,975 20,945 22,776 23,329 24,954
1 Month 2,401 2,541 2,591 2,780 2,610
2 Months 2,296 2,447 2,585 2,676 2,591
3 Months 2,167 2,248 2,372 2,524 2,264
4 Months 2,078 2,124 2,238 2,277 2,188
5 Months 1,983 2,052 2,160 2,228 2,226
6 Months 1,846 2,003 2,107 2,178 2,060
7 Months 1,816 1,968 2,069 2,168 2,084
8 Months 1,914 1,995 2,069 2,149 2,076
9 Months 1,767 1,980 2,117 2,145 2,026
10 Months 1,839 1,963 2,037 2,080 1,971
11 Months 1,840 1,873 2,003 2,143 1,995
Total <1 Year 39,922 44,139 47,124 48,677 49,045
VICTIM BY AGE WITH ALCOHOL ABUSE RISK FACTOR - - - - -
<1 Month With Alcohol Abuse Child Risk Factor 1,075 1,199 1,281 1,258 1,998
1 Month With Alcohol Abuse Child Risk Factor 29 34 35 33 43
2 Months With Alcohol Abuse Child Risk Factor 14 28 26 14 47
Total <1 Year With Alcohol Abuse Child Risk Factor 1,235 1,403 1,471 1,432 2,357
VICTIM BY AGE WITH ALCOHOL ABUSE RISK FACTOR PERCENTAGE - - - - -
<1 Month With Alcohol Abuse Child Risk Factor Percentage 6.0 5.7 5.6 5.4 8.0
1 Month With Alcohol Abuse Child Risk Factor Percentage 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.6
2 Months With Alcohol Abuse Child Risk Factor Percentage 0.6 1.1 1.0 0.5 1.8
Total <1 Year With Alcohol Abuse Child Risk Factor Percentage 3.1 3.2 3.1 2.9 4.8
National <1 Year Child Population in Reporting States 1,886,779 1,948,828 1,999,003 2,048,626 2,029,894
National <1 Year With Alcohol Abuse Child Risk Factor
Rate per 1,000 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.2

Table 3–15 Victims <1–11 Months With Drug Abuse Child Risk Factor, 2012–2016
Victim 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
VICTIM BY AGE - - - - -
<1 Month 22,609 26,275 33,251 34,240 36,767
1 Month 3,005 3,116 3,453 3,662 3,547
2 Months 2,833 3,055 3,421 3,546 3,491
3 Months 2,717 2,795 3,164 3,394 3,110
4 Months 2,544 2,691 3,011 3,116 2,998
5 Months 2,450 2,535 2,888 2,986 3,033
6 Months 2,270 2,502 2,812 2,931 2,835
7 Months 2,285 2,486 2,748 2,901 2,894
8 Months 2,363 2,470 2,785 2,867 2,905
9 Months 2,218 2,433 2,768 2,839 2,797
10 Months 2,287 2,409 2,706 2,738 2,716
11 Months 2,273 2,335 2,623 2,811 2,723
Total <1 Year 49,854 55,102 65,630 68,031 69,816
VICTIM BY AGE WITH DRUG ABUSE RISK FACTOR - - - - -
<1 Month With Drug Abuse Child Risk Factor 5,549 6,355 6,394 6,928 9,191
1 Month With Drug Abuse Child Risk Factor 105 111 129 139 202
2 Months With Drug Abuse Child Risk Factor 64 86 107 74 163
Total <1 Year With Drug Abuse Child Risk Factor 6,137 7,016 7,139 7,723 10,626
VICTIM BY AGE WITH DRUG ABUSE RISK FACTOR PERCENTAGE - - - - -
<1 Month With Drug Abuse Child Risk Factor Percentage 24.5 24.2 19.2 20.2 25.0
1 Month With Drug Abuse Child Risk Factor Percentage 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 5.7
2 Months With Drug Abuse Child Risk Factor Percentage 2.3 2.8 3.1 2.1 4.7
Total <1 Year With Drug Abuse Child Risk Factor Percentage 12.3 12.7 10.9 11.4 15.2
National <1 Year Child Population in Reporting States 2,357,741 2,511,381 2,595,403 2,749,228 2,734,663
National <1 Year With Drug Abuse Child Risk Factor
Rate per 1,000 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.9

Table 3–16 Victims by Relationship to Their Perpetrators, 2016
Reported Relationships
PERPETRATOR Victims Reported Relationships Percent
PARENT - - -
Father - 136,734 21.7
Father and Nonparent(s) - 7,277 1.2
Mother - 254,231 40.3
Mother and Nonparent(s) - 43,480 6.9
Mother and Father - 129,165 20.5
Mother, Father, and Nonparent - 6,173 1.0
Total Parents - 577,060 91.4
NONPARENT - - -
Child Daycare Provider - 2,104 0.3
Foster Parent - 1,539 0.2
Friend and Neighbor - 4,822 0.8
Group Home and Residential Facility Staff - 1,498 0.2
Legal Guardian - 1,484 0.2
More Than One Nonparental Perpetrator - 6,951 1.1
Other Professional - 985 0.2
Partner of Parent (Female) - 1,893 0.3
Partner of Parent (Male) - 16,864 2.7
Relative (Female) - 10,070 1.6
Relative (Male) - 19,246 3.0
Other - 17,175 2.7
Total Nonparents - 84,631 13.4
UNKNOWN - - -
Unknown - 19,379 3.1
Total Unknown - 19,379 3.1
National 631,564 681,070 107.8

Fatalities
CHAPTER 4
The effects of child abuse and neglect are serious, and a child fatality is the most tragic consequence.
The National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) collects case-level data in the Child
File on child deaths from maltreatment. Additional counts of child fatalities, for which case-level data
are not known, are reported in the Agency File.
Some child maltreatment deaths may not come to the attention of child protective services (CPS).
Reasons for this include if there were no surviving siblings in the family, or if the child had not (prior
to his or her death) received child welfare services. To improve the counts of child fatalities, states
are increasingly consulting data sources outside of CPS for deaths attributed to child maltreatment.
The Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act (P.L. 112–34) lists the following
additional data sources, which states should include when reporting on child deaths due to maltreat-
ment: state vital statistics departments, child death review teams, law enforcement agencies, and
offices of medical examiners or coroners. In addition to the sources mentioned in the law, some states
also collect child fatality data from hospitals, health departments, juvenile justice departments, and
prosecutor and attorney general offices. States that can provide these additional data do so as aggre-
gate data via the Agency File.
Number of Child Fatalities

Forty-nine states reported 1,700 fatalities. Of those states, 44 reported case-level data on 1,447 fatali-
ties and 42 reported aggregate data on 253 fatalities. Fatality rates by state ranged from 0.00 to 5.96
per 100,000 children in the population. The number of child fatalities reported by states in the Child
File and Agency File has fluctuated during the past 5 years. (See tables 4–1, 4–2, and related notes.)
For FFY 2016, a nationally estimated 1,750 children died from abuse and neglect at a rate of 2.36 per
100,000 children in the population. The 2016 national estimate of 1,750 child deaths due to maltreat-
ment is a 7.4 percent increase from the 2012 national estimate of 1,630. The percent change was
calculated using the national estimates for FFY 2012 and FFY 2016. (See exhibit 4–A and related
notes.) Due to the relatively low frequency of child fatalities, the national rate and national estimate
are sensitive to which states report data and changes in the child population estimates produced by the
U.S. Census Bureau.
With the passage of the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act in 2011, several
states mentioned that they implemented new child death reviews or expanded the scope of existing
reviews. Some states began investigating all unexplained infant deaths regardless of whether there was
an allegation of maltreatment. Detailed explanations for data fluctuations may be found in the state
Child Maltreatment 2016 chApter 4: Fatalities 53

Exhibit 4–A Child Fatality Rates per 100,000 Children, 2012–2016
Child Population of Child Fatalities from National Fatality Rate Child Population of all National Estimate of
Year Reporting States Reporting States Reporting States Per 100,000 Children 52 States Child Fatalities
2012 51 74,277,427 1,621 2.18 74,542,811 1,630
2013 51 74,121,591 1,551 2.09 74,383,731 1,550
2014 51 74,086,682 1,588 2.14 74,346,098 1,590
2015 49 70,416,380 1,589 2.26 74,349,174 1,680
2016 49 72,009,469 1,700 2.36 74,338,157 1,750
Data are from the Child File and Agency File. National fatality rates per 100,000 children were calculated by dividing the number of child fatalities by the
population of reporting states and multiplying by 100,000.
If fewer than 52 states reported data, the national estimate of child fatalities was calculated by multiplying the national fatality rate by the child population
of all 52 states and dividing by 100,000. The estimate was rounded to the nearest 10. If 52 states reported data, the national estimate of child fatalities was
calculated by taking the number of reported child fatalities and rounding to the nearest 10. Because of the rounding rule, the national estimate could have
more or fewer fatalities than the actual reported number of fatalities.
commentaries in appendix D. An explanation for a change may be in an earlier edition of the Child
Maltreatment report. Previous editions of the report are located on the Children’s Bureau website at
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/child-maltreatment.
The child fatality count in this report reflects the federal fiscal year in which the deaths were deter-
mined as due to maltreatment. The year in which a determination was made may be different from
the year in which the child died. In FFY 2013, states began reporting the “maltreatment death date”
to differentiate the year in which the death was reported to NCANDS in the Child File from the year
in which the child died. More than 60.0 percent (62.3%) of the deaths reported in FFY 2016 occurred
during FFY 2016 and 27.4% occurred during FFY 2015. Fewer than 8.0 percent (7.4%) occurred
prior to FFY 2015 and fewer than 3.0 percent (2.8%) were reported with an unknown date of death.
CPS agencies may need more time to determine a child died due to maltreatment. The time needed
to conclude if a child was a victim of maltreatment often does not coincide with the timeframe for
concluding that the death was a result of maltreatment due to multiple agency involvement and
multiple levels of review for child deaths. (See table 4–3 and related notes.)
Child Fatality Demographics

Seventy percent of all child fatalities were younger than 3 years, and the child fatality rates mostly
decreased with age. Children who were younger than 1 year died from maltreatment at a rate of 20.63
per 100,000 children in the population younger than 1 year. This is 3 times the fatality rate for children
who were 1 year old (6.50 per 100,000 children in the population of the same age). As shown in exhibit
4–B, younger children are the most vulnerable to death as the result of child abuse and neglect. (See
table 4–4, exhibit 4–B, and related notes.)
Boys had a higher child fatality rate than girls; 2.87 per 100,000 boys in the population, compared
with 2.11 per 100,000 girls in the population. (See exhibit 4–C and related notes.) Eighty-seven percent
(87.4%) of child fatalities were White (45.1%), African-American (28.5%), and Hispanic (13.8%). Using
the number of victims and the population data to create rates highlights some racial disparity. The rate
of African-American child fatalities (4.65 per 100,000 African-American children) is 2.2 times greater
than the rate of White children (2.08 per 100,000 White children) and nearly 3 times greater than the
rate of Hispanic children (1.58 per 100,000 Hispanic children). (See exhibit 4–D and related notes.)

Exhibit 4–B Child Fatalities by Age, 2016
Children <1 year old died from abuse and neglect at three times the rate of children who were 1 year old.
Exhibit 4–C Child Fatalities by Sex, 2016

Child Fatalities Rate per
Sex Child Population Child Fatalities Child Fatalities Percent 100,000 Children
Boys 29,586,447 848 58.6 2.87
Girls 28,345,887 597 41.3 2.11
Unknown - 2 0.1 -
National 57,932,334 1,447 100.0 -
Based on data from 45 states. Data are from the Child File. Rates are calculated by dividing the number of male child fatalities and female
child fatalities by the child population for each sex and multiplying by 100,000. There are no population data for unknown sex and therefore
no rates.
Exhibit 4–D Child Fatalities by Race and Ethnicity, 2016

Race Child Population Child Fatalities Child Fatalities Percent 100,000 Children
SINGLE RACE - - - -
African-American 8,627,798 401 28.5 4.65
American Indian or
Alaska Native 489,595 16 1.1 3.27
Asian 2,243,711 13 0.9 0.58
Hispanic 12,316,877 194 13.8 1.58
Pacific Islander 89,152 3 0.2 3.37
Unknown - 78 5.5 -
White 30,409,664 634 45.1 2.08
MULTIPLE RACE - - - -
Two or More Races 2,253,742 67 4.8 2.97
National 56,430,539 1,406 100.0 -
Based on data from 43 states. Data are from the Child File. The category multiple race is defined as any combination of two or more race
categories. Counts associated with specific racial groups (e.g., White) are exclusive and do not include Hispanic.
States with more than 25 percent of victim race or ethnicity as unknown or missing were excluded from this analysis. Rates were calculated by
dividing the number of fatalities for each race or ethnicity by the child population for each race or ethnicity and multiplying by 100,000. This
analysis includes only those states that reported both victim race and ethnicity.

Maltreatment Types Exhibit 4–E Maltreatment Types
Of the children who died, 74.6 of Child Fatalities, 2016
percent suffered neglect and
Maltreatment Types
44.2 percent suffered physical Maltreatment Type Child Fatalities Maltreatment Types Percent
abuse either exclusively or Medical Neglect - 82 5.7

Neglect - 1,079 74.6
in combination with another Other - 217 15.0
maltreatment type. (See Physical Abuse - 639 44.2
Psychological Abuse - 19 1.3
exhibit 4–E and related notes.)
Sexual Abuse - 18 1.2
Because a victim may have Unknown - 1 0.1
suffered from more than one National 1,447 2,055 142.0
type of maltreatment, every Based on data from 44 states. Data are from the Child File. A child may have suffered from
more than one type of maltreatment and therefore, the total number of reported maltreatments
reported maltreatment type exceeds the number of fatalities, and the total percentage of reported maltreatments exceeds
was counted, and the percent- 100.0 percent. The percentages were calculated against the number of child fatalities in the
reporting states.
ages total to more than 100.0
percent.
Risk Factors
Risk factors are characteristics of a child or caregiver that may increase the likelihood of child
maltreatment. Risk factors can be difficult to accurately assess and measure, and therefore may go
undetected among many children and caregivers. Some states were able to report data on caregiver
risk factors for children who died as a result of maltreatment. Caregivers with these risk factors may
or may not have been the perpetrator responsible for the child’s death. Please see the Risk Factors
section in chapter 3 or Appendix B, Glossary for more information and the NCANDS’ definitions
of these risk factors. Twenty-seven states reported that 5.7 percent of child fatalities were associated
with a caregiver who had a risk factor of alcohol abuse. Thirty-one states reported that 15.1 percent
of child fatalities were associated with a caregiver who had a risk factor of drug abuse. For 30 states,
9.9 percent of child fatalities had a caregiver with a financial problem, and in 32 states, 7.5 percent of
fatalities had a caregiver who lived in inadequate housing. (See exhibit 4–F and related notes.)
Exhibit 4–F Child Fatalities with Selected Caregiver Risk Factors, 2016
Child Fatalities from Child Fatalities With a Child Fatalities With a
Caregiver Risk Factor Reporting States Reporting States Caregiver Risk Factor Caregiver Risk Factor Percent
Alcohol Abuse 27 896 51 5.7
Drug Abuse 31 1,120 169 15.1
Financial Problem 30 1,156 114 9.9
Inadequate Housing 32 952 71 7.5
Data are from the Child File. For each caregiver risk factor, the analysis includes only those states that reported at least 1.0 percent of child
victims’ caregiver with the risk factor. States were excluded from these analyses if they were not able to differentiate between alcohol abuse and
drug abuse caregiver risk factors and reported both risk factors for the same children in both caregiver risk factor categories. If a child was
reported both with and without the caregiver risk factor, the child is counted once with the caregiver risk factor.
Most perpetrators were caregivers of their victims. More than three-quarters (78.0%) of child fatali-
ties involved parents acting alone, together, or with other individuals. Fewer (16.7%) fatalities did not
have a parental relationship to their perpetrator. Child fatalities with unknown perpetrator relation-
ship data accounted for 5.3 percent. (See table 4–5 and related notes.)

Prior CPS Contact
Some children who died from abuse and neglect were already known to CPS agencies. A new analysis
was conducted to determine how many previous CPS contacts children had before they died due to
maltreatment. To be included in this analysis, states had to report the child fatalities and the maltreat-
ment death date in the Child File submission. For each child fatality, any record with a report date of
up to 3 years prior to the maltreatment date of death was counted as a prior CPS contact. Nearly 30.0
(29.7%) percent of the fatalities in this analysis had at least 1 prior CPS contact in the 3 years prior to
the date of death. Of those, 7.0 percent had at least one victim contact (meaning a previous report of
maltreatment had a disposition of substantiated or indicated), 17.1 percent had at least one nonvictim
contact, and 5.6 percent had both victim and nonvictim prior contacts. For the 35 states that reported
these data, most fatalities (861 or 70.3%) did not have any previous CPS contacts. (See exhibit 4–G
and related notes.)
Exhibit 4–G Fatalities by Number of Prior CPS Contacts, 2016

Fatalities with
Fatalities with Fatalities with Fatalities with Prior Victim
Fatalities with Fatalities with Prior Victim Fatalities with Prior Nonvictim Prior Victim and Nonvictim
Number of Prior a Maltreatment Prior Victim Contact Prior Nonvictim Contact and Nonvictim Contact
CPS Contacts Date of Death Contact Percentage Contact Percentage Contact Percentage
1 - 79 6.5 143 11.7 0 0.0
2 - 6 0.5 45 3.7 37 3.0
3 - 0 0.0 12 1.0 17 1.4
>3 - 0 0.0 9 0.7 14 1.1
National 1,223 85 7.0 209 17.1 68 5.6
Based on data from 35 states. States must report both fatalities and maltreatment death date in the Child File to be included in this analysis.
Only fatalities reported in FFY 2016 that had a maltreatment death date are included in this analysis. Prior CPS contacts with a report date
of up to 3 years prior to the maltreatment death date were counted. States were excluded from this analysis if child IDs were not unique across
years. A fatality record was excluded if the fatality was also reported in a prior year.
In 28 reporting states, 10.4 percent of child fatalities involved families who had received family
preservation services in the previous 5 years. In 37 reporting states, 2.4 percent of child fatalities
involved children who had been in foster care and were reunited with their families in the previous 5
years. (See tables 4–6, 4–7, and related notes.) Not all states are able to report these two services, and
the national percentage is sensitive to which states report data. There may be additional children who
died and who were previously known to CPS, but who did not receive either of these services.

provided below.
General
data from as many states as possible. States may be excluded from an analysis for data quality
issues. Exclusion rules are listed in the table notes below.
■ The data for all tables are from the Child File unless otherwise noted.
■ All analyses use a unique count of fatalities (child fatality is counted once).
■ Rates are per 100,000 children in the population.
■ NCANDS uses the child population estimates that are released annually by the U.S. Census
Bureau. These estimates are provided in appendix C.


■ Child fatalities are reported during the federal fiscal year in which the death was determined to
have been caused by maltreatment. This may not be the same year in which the child died.
Table 4–1 Child Fatalities by Submission Type, 2016

■ Data are from the Child File and Agency File.
■ The rates were computed by dividing the number of total child fatalities by the child population of
reporting states and multiplying by 100,000.
Table 4–2 Child Fatalities, 2012–2016

Table 4–3 Child Fatalities by Maltreatment Death Year, 2016

■ The maltreatment death year is displayed by FFY.
Table 4–4 Child Fatalities by Age, 2016

■ The rates were calculated by dividing the number of child fatalities for each age by the child
population for each age and multiplying by 100,000.

■ There are no population data for unknown age and therefore, no rates.
Table 4–5 Child Fatalities by Relationship to Their Perpetrators, 2016

■ States were excluded from this analysis if more than 10.0 percent of perpetrators were reported
without a coded relationship (blank), if more than 50.0 percent of perpetrators were reported with
“other” or unknown relationship, or if the sex of the perpetrators was not reported.
■ In NCANDS, a child fatality may have up to three perpetrators. A few states’ systems do not have
the capability of collecting and reporting data for all three perpetrator fields. More information
may be found in appendix D.
■ Nonparent perpetrators counted in combination with parents (i.e., Mother and Nonparent(s); Father
and Nonparent(s); or Mother, Father, and Nonparent) are not also counted in the individual relation-
ship categories listed under Nonparent.
■ The relationship categories listed under Nonparent perpetrator include any perpetrator relationship
that was not identified as an adoptive parent, biological parent, or stepparent.

■ The Unknown relationship category includes victims with an unknown perpetrator.
■ Some states were not able to collect and report on group home and residential facility staff
perpetrators due to system limitations or jurisdictional issues. More information may be found in
appendix D.
Table 4–6 Child Fatalities Who Received Family Preservation Services Within the
Previous 5 Years, 2016
Table 4–7 Child Fatalities Who Were Reunited With Their Families Within the Previous
5 Years, 2016

Table 4–1 Child Fatalities by Submission Type, 2016
Child Fatalities Reported in Child Fatalities Reported in Child Fatality Rates per
State the Child File the Agency File Total Child Fatalities 100,000 Children
Alabama 26 0 26 2.37
Alaska - 1 1 0.53
Arizona 48 0 48 2.94
Arkansas 42 - 42 5.96
California - 137 137 1.51
Colorado 36 1 37 2.93
Connecticut 6 - 6 0.80
Delaware 0 0 0 0.00
District of Columbia 3 0 3 2.48
Florida 110 - 110 2.65
Georgia 97 0 97 3.86
Hawaii 4 0 4 1.30
Idaho 1 2 3 0.69
Illinois 64 0 64 2.19
Indiana 70 - 70 4.44
Iowa 12 0 12 1.64
Kansas 10 0 10 1.40
Kentucky 15 0 15 1.48
Louisiana 39 2 41 3.68
Maine - - - -
Maryland 13 19 32 2.37
Massachusetts - - - -
Michigan 85 0 85 3.88
Minnesota 28 0 28 2.17
Mississippi 41 0 41 5.68
Missouri 25 4 29 2.09
Montana 0 0 0 0.00
Nebraska 7 0 7 1.48
Nevada 10 3 13 1.92
New Hampshire 0 4 4 1.53
New Jersey 21 0 21 1.06
New Mexico 8 3 11 2.24
New York 86 9 95 2.27
North Carolina - 32 32 1.39
North Dakota 4 0 4 2.27
Ohio 65 1 66 2.53
Oklahoma 31 0 31 3.22
Oregon - 19 19 2.19
Pennsylvania 47 0 47 1.76
Puerto Rico - - - -
Rhode Island 4 - 4 1.92
South Carolina 21 1 22 2.00
South Dakota 4 - 4 1.88
Tennessee 41 0 41 2.73
Texas 217 0 217 2.97
Utah 12 0 12 1.30
Vermont 0 0 0 0.00
Virginia 45 0 45 2.41
Washington - 15 15 0.92
West Virginia 20 0 20 5.33
Wisconsin 25 - 25 1.94
Wyoming 4 0 4 2.88
National 1,447 253 1,700 2.36
Reporting States 44 42 49 -

Table 4–2 Child Fatalities, 2012–2016
State 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Alabama 21 32 17 13 26
Alaska 4 1 3 5 1
Arizona 30 54 43 51 48
Arkansas 33 29 21 40 42
California 130 139 134 127 137
Colorado 39 21 20 19 37
Connecticut 6 5 13 11 6
Delaware 3 6 5 1 0
District of Columbia 2 3 3 3 3
Florida 179 121 138 124 110
Georgia 71 90 102 113 97
Hawaii 3 5 2 4 4
Idaho 6 5 4 6 3
Illinois 105 93 100 77 64
Indiana 23 28 49 34 70
Iowa 7 5 8 12 12
Kansas 8 7 13 8 10
Kentucky 26 23 15 16 15
Louisiana 42 43 31 39 41
Maine - - - - -
Maryland 26 27 24 28 32
Massachusetts 20 30 26 - -
Michigan 63 59 76 83 85
Minnesota 10 18 15 17 28
Mississippi 7 12 22 35 41
Missouri 20 39 36 35 29
Montana 2 1 4 2 0
Nebraska 6 6 5 3 7
Nevada 18 10 15 13 13
New Hampshire 1 3 1 4 4
New Jersey 16 18 9 23 21
New Mexico 16 7 7 14 11
New York 100 107 114 108 95
North Carolina 24 29 25 - 32
North Dakota 1 1 3 3 4
Ohio 70 48 51 74 66
Oklahoma 25 43 34 31 31
Oregon 17 10 13 27 19
Pennsylvania 38 34 34 31 47
Puerto Rico 19 10 11 7 -
Rhode Island 1 1 6 0 4
South Carolina 27 28 41 25 22
South Dakota 6 5 4 11 4
Tennessee 31 40 28 32 41
Texas 215 150 153 162 217
Utah 12 7 15 6 12
Vermont 0 0 1 3 0
Virginia 33 33 37 54 45
Washington 21 27 19 27 15
West Virginia 5 17 19 9 20
Wisconsin 31 21 18 17 25
Wyoming 2 0 1 2 4
National 1,621 1,551 1,588 1,589 1,700

Table 4–3 Child Fatalities by Maltreatment Death Year, 2016
2012 and prior Total Child
State years 2013 2014 2015 2016 Unknown Fatalities
Alabama 1 3 6 7 9 - 26
Alaska - - - - - - -
Arizona - - - 19 12 17 48
Arkansas - - 1 9 32 - 42
California - - - - - - -
Colorado - - - 5 24 7 36
Connecticut - - - 1 5 - 6
Delaware - - - - - - 0
District of Columbia - - - - 3 - 3
Florida - - 10 61 39 - 110
Georgia - - - 11 86 - 97
Hawaii - - - 2 2 - 4
Idaho - - - - 1 - 1
Illinois - 1 - 24 37 2 64
Indiana - 16 48 6 - - 70
Iowa - - - - 12 - 12
Kansas - 2 1 4 3 - 10
Kentucky - - - 7 8 - 15
Louisiana - - - 6 31 2 39
Maine - - - - - - -
Maryland - - - 4 9 - 13
Massachusetts - - - - - - -
Michigan - - - 21 62 2 85
Minnesota - - - 12 16 - 28
Mississippi - - - 5 36 - 41
Missouri - - - 10 15 - 25
Montana - - - - - - 0
Nebraska - - 3 2 2 - 7
Nevada - - - 1 6 3 10
New Hampshire - - - - - - 0
New Jersey - - - 7 14 - 21
New Mexico - - - 3 5 - 8
New York 3 1 - 27 55 - 86
North Carolina - - - - - - -
North Dakota - - - 2 2 - 4
Ohio - - - 11 53 1 65
Oklahoma - 2 5 20 4 - 31
Oregon - - - - - - -
Pennsylvania - 2 - 11 30 4 47
Rhode Island - - - - 4 - 4
South Carolina - - - 2 19 - 21
South Dakota - - - - 4 - 4
Tennessee - - - 13 28 - 41
Texas - 1 - 47 167 2 217
Utah - - 1 - 11 - 12
Vermont - - - - - - 0
Virginia - - - 25 20 - 45
Washington - - - - - - -
West Virginia 1 - - 2 17 - 20
Wisconsin - - - 7 18 - 25
Wyoming - - - 2 1 1 4
National 5 28 75 396 902 41 1,447
National Percent 0.3 1.9 5.2 27.4 62.3 2.8 100.0
Reporting States 5 8 8 34 39 10 44

Table 4–4 Child Fatalities by Age, 2016
Age Child Population Child Fatalities Child Fatalities Percent 100,000 Children
<1 3,116,802 643 44.4 20.63
1 3,138,847 204 14.1 6.50
2 3,141,535 166 11.5 5.28
3 3,127,753 100 6.9 3.20
4 3,136,720 68 4.7 2.17
5 3,163,281 41 2.8 1.30
6 3,167,107 36 2.5 1.14
7 3,168,291 20 1.4 0.63
8 3,268,114 20 1.4 0.61
9 3,285,148 20 1.4 0.61
10 3,261,512 27 1.9 0.83
11 3,251,697 18 1.2 0.55
12 3,261,154 11 0.8 0.34
13 3,239,241 11 0.8 0.34
14 3,227,942 13 0.9 0.40
15 3,307,354 11 0.8 0.33
16 3,360,726 15 1.0 0.45
17 3,309,110 21 1.5 0.63
Unborn, Unknown, - 2 0.1 -
and 18–21
National 57,932,334 1,447 100.0 -
Table 4–5 Child Fatalities by Relationship to Their Perpetrators, 2016

Reported Relationships
PERPETRATOR Child Fatalities Reported Relationships Percent
PARENT - - -
Father - 216 16.8

Father and Nonparent(s) - 24 1.9
Mother - 347 27.0
Mother and Nonparent(s) - 137 10.7
Mother and Father - 258 20.1
Mother, Father, and Nonparent - 20 1.6
Total Parents - 1,002 78.0
NONPARENT - - -
Child Daycare Provider (Female) - 23 1.8

Child Daycare Provider (Male) - 1 0.1
Foster Parent - 5 0.4
Friend or Neighbor - 8 0.6
Group Home and Residential Facility Staff - - -
Legal Guardian - 1 0.1
More than One Nonparental Perpetrator - 36 2.8
Other - 45 3.5
Other Professional - 1 0.1
Partner of Parent (Female) - 3 0.2
Partner of Parent (Male) - 31 2.4
Relative (Female) - 35 2.7
Relative (Male) - 26 2.0
Total Nonparents - 215 16.7
UNKNOWN - - -
Unknown - 68 5.3
Total Unknown - 68 5.3
National 1,285 1,285 100.0

Table 4–6 Child Fatalities Who Received Family Preservation
Services Within the Previous 5 Years, 2016
Child Fatalities Whose Families Child Fatalities Whose Families
Received Preservation Services in Received Preservation Services in
State Child Fatalities the Previous 5 Years the Previous 5 Years Percent
Alabama 26 3 -
Alaska - - -
Arizona - - -
Arkansas 42 5 -
California - - -
Colorado - - -
Connecticut - - -
Delaware 0 0 -
District of Columbia 3 0 -
Florida 110 10 -
Georgia 97 22 -
Hawaii - - -
Idaho 3 1 -
Illinois - - -
Indiana - - -
Iowa - - -
Kansas 10 2 -
Kentucky 15 0 -
Louisiana 41 2 -
Maine - - -
Maryland 32 1 -
Massachusetts - - -
Michigan - - -
Minnesota 28 3 -
Mississippi 41 1 -
Missouri 29 0 -
Montana 0 0 -
Nebraska 7 0 -
Nevada 13 0 -
New Hampshire 4 0 -
New Jersey 21 0 -
New Mexico 11 0 -
New York - - -
North Dakota 4 0 -
Ohio - - -
Oklahoma 31 1 -
Oregon 19 6 -
Pennsylvania - - -
Puerto Rico - - -
Rhode Island - - -
South Dakota - - -
Tennessee 41 4 -
Texas 217 28 -
Utah 12 0 -
Vermont 0 0 -
Virginia - - -
Washington 15 2 -
West Virginia - - -
Wisconsin - - -
Wyoming - - -
National 872 91 10.4

Table 4–7 Child Fatalities Who Were Reunited With Their Families
Within the Previous 5 Years, 2016
Child Fatalities Who Were Reunited Child Fatalities Who Were Reunited
With Their Families Within the With Their Families Within the
State Child Fatalities Previous 5 Years Previous 5 Years Percent
Alabama 26 0 -
Alaska 1 0 -
Arizona - - -
Arkansas 42 1 -
California - - -
Colorado 37 2 -
Connecticut - - -
Delaware 0 0 -
District of Columbia 3 0 -
Florida 110 3 -
Georgia 97 2 -
Hawaii 4 1 -
Idaho 3 0 -
Illinois - - -
Indiana 70 4 -
Iowa - - -
Kansas 10 1 -
Kentucky 15 0 -
Louisiana 41 3 -
Maine - - -
Maryland 32 0 -
Massachusetts - - -
Michigan - - -
Minnesota 28 1 -
Mississippi 41 0 -
Missouri 29 0 -
Montana 0 0 -
Nebraska 7 1 -
Nevada 13 0 -
New Hampshire 4 0 -
New Jersey 21 0 -
New Mexico 11 0 -
New York - - -
North Dakota 4 0 -
Ohio 66 3 -
Oklahoma 31 0 -
Oregon 19 0 -
Pennsylvania - - -
Puerto Rico - - -
Rhode Island 4 0 -
South Carolina 22 0 -
South Dakota - - -
Tennessee 41 1 -
Texas 217 3 -
Utah 12 0 -
Vermont 0 0 -
Virginia - - -
Washington 15 0 -
West Virginia - - -
Wisconsin 25 1 -
Wyoming 4 0 -
National 1,105 27 2.4

Perpetrators
CHAPTER 5
The National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) defines a perpetrator as a person
who was determined to have caused or knowingly allowed the maltreatment of a child. NCANDS
does not collect information about persons who were alleged to be perpetrators and not found to have
perpetrated abuse and neglect. This chapter includes perpetrators of children with substantiated and
indicated dispositions (see chapter 3 for definitions). The majority of perpetrators were caregivers of
their victims.
Number of Perpetrators (unique count of perpetrators)

The analyses in this chapter use a unique count of perpetrators, which means identifying and count-
ing a perpetrator once, regardless of the number of times the perpetrator was the subject of a report.
For FFY 2016, 50 states reported a unique count of 518,136 perpetrators. (See table 5–1 and related
notes.)
Perpetrator Demographics (unique count of perpetrators)

More than four-fifths (83.4%) of perpetrators were in the age group of 18–44 years. Perpetrators
younger than 18 years accounted for 2.0 percent of all perpetrators. Some states have laws that limit
the youngest age that a person
can be considered a perpetrator Exhibit 5–A Perpetrators by Age, 2016
(appendix D). The perpetrator Perpetrators in the age group 25–34 years had the highest rate
age group of 25–34 had the
highest rate at 5.0 per 1,000
adults in the population of the
same age. Older adults in the
age group of 35–44 had the
second highest rate at 3.2, which
was higher than the age group
of 18–24 with a rate of 3.0 per
1,000 adults in the population
of the same age. (See table 5–2,
exhibit 5–A, and related notes.)
Child Maltreatment 2016 chApter 5: Perpetrators 65

More than one-half (53.7%) of perpetrators were women and 45.3 percent of perpetrators were men;
1.0 percent were of unknown sex. (See table 5–3 and related notes.) The racial distributions of per-
petrators were similar to the race of their victims. The three largest percentages of perpetrators were
White (49.8%), African-American (20.0%), and Hispanic (18.8%). Race or ethnicity was unknown or
not reported for 6.9 percent of perpetrators. (See table 5–4, exhibit 5–B, and related notes.)
Exhibit 5–B Perpetrators by Race and Ethnicity, 2016

Most perpetrators (87.9%) were White, African-American, or Hispanic
(unique count of perpetrators and unique count of relationships)
In this analysis, single relationships are counted only once per category. Perpetrators with two or
more relationships are counted in the multiple relationships category. In the scenarios below, the
perpetrator is counted once in the parent category:
■ The perpetrator is a parent to one victim and in two or more reports (one victim was reported at
least twice).
■ The perpetrator is a parent to two victims and in one report.
In the following scenarios, the perpetrator is counted once in the multiple relationships category:
■ The perpetrator is a parent to one victim and is an unmarried partner of parent to a second victim
in the same report.

■ The perpetrator is a parent to one victim in one report and an unmarried partner of parent to a
second victim in a second report.
The majority (77.6%) of perpetrators were a parent of their victim, 6.2 percent of perpetrators were
a relative other than a parent, and 4.1 percent had a multiple relationship to either multiple victims
in the same report or multiple victims across reports. Nearly 4.0 percent (3.8%) of perpetrators had
an “other” relationship to their victims. According to states’ commentary, the NCANDS category of
“other” perpetrator relationship includes foster sibling, nonrelative, household staff, clergy, etc. Please
refer to appendix D for more information. (See table 5–5 and related notes.)
Child Maltreatment 2016 Chapter 5: Perpetrators 66

provided below.
General
■ The data for all tables are from the Child File.
■ Rates are per 1,000 adults in the population.
■ NCANDS uses the population estimates that are released annually by the U.S. Census Bureau. These
estimates are available in appendix C.


■ All tables use a unique count of perpetrators.
Table 5–1 Perpetrators, 2012–2016

■ One state does not report perpetrator data.
Table 5–2 Perpetrators by Age, 2016

■ Rates were calculated by dividing the perpetrator count by the adult population count and multiply-
ing by 1,000.
■ In NCANDS, valid perpetrator ages are 6–75 years old. If a perpetrator was reported with an age 76
years or older, the age is recoded to 75.

■ Adult population estimates are provided in appendix C.
■ Some states have laws restricting how young a perpetrator can be. More information may be found in
appendix D.
Table 5–3 Perpetrators by Sex, 2016

■ States were excluded from this analysis if more than 20 percent of perpetrators were reported with
unknown sex.
■ The category of unknown sex may include not reported.
Table 5–4 Perpetrators by Race and Ethnicity, 2016

■ The NCANDS category of multiple race is defined as any combination of two or more race
categories.
■ Counts associated with each racial group are exclusive and do not include Hispanic ethnicity.
■ Perpetrators reported with Hispanic ethnicity are counted as Hispanic, regardless of any reported
race.
■ Only those states that reported both race and ethnicity separately are included in this analysis.
■ States were excluded from this analysis if more than 45.0 percent of perpetrators were reported with
as unknown or missing race or ethnicity.

Table 5–5 Perpetrators by Relationship to Their Victims, 2016
■ Some states were not able to collect and report on group home and residential facility staff perpetra-
tors due to system limitations or jurisdictional issues. More information may be found in appendix D.
■ States were excluded from this analysis if more than 50 percent of perpetrators were reported with an
“other” relationships or more than 50 percent were reported with an unknown relationship.
■ States were excluded from this analysis if more than 10 percent of perpetrators were reported without
coded relationships (meaning the relationship field was blank).

Table 5–1 Perpetrators, 2012–2016
State 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Alabama 8,115 6,259 6,278 6,075 7,280
Alaska 2,260 1,934 1,973 2,255 2,424
Arizona 10,709 13,901 14,788 12,232 11,107
Arkansas 9,318 8,735 7,570 7,831 8,221
California 59,793 59,772 59,291 57,344 55,304
Colorado 8,867 8,618 8,390 8,797 9,818
Connecticut 6,629 5,916 6,269 5,620 6,385
Delaware 1,832 1,465 1,175 1,202 1,281
District of Columbia 1,681 1,409 1,055 946 961
Florida 39,445 35,978 33,767 32,421 31,333
Georgia - - - - -
Hawaii 1,184 1,156 1,100 1,235 1,195
Idaho 1,222 1,454 1,394 1,417 1,650
Illinois 14,776 13,585 18,322 21,571 20,668
Indiana 15,853 17,135 18,203 20,385 22,090
Iowa 8,476 8,744 6,121 5,919 6,437
Kansas 1,530 1,703 1,668 1,653 2,017
Kentucky 11,817 13,468 11,756 13,191 12,975
Louisiana 6,216 8,761 10,065 10,665 9,682
Maine 3,508 3,501 3,424 3,085 3,158
Maryland 10,742 9,885 7,507 5,700 5,869
Massachusetts 15,523 16,523 25,721 25,272 25,889
Michigan 27,274 27,715 25,344 28,753 30,957
Minnesota 3,394 3,227 3,179 4,013 5,792
Mississippi 5,967 5,577 6,294 6,726 8,368
Missouri 4,058 4,560 4,687 4,940 4,765
Montana 968 1,001 902 1,316 2,332
Nebraska 2,696 2,802 2,830 2,445 1,976
Nevada 4,519 4,394 3,728 3,975 3,998
New Hampshire 822 784 609 673 816
New Jersey 6,906 7,351 8,871 7,518 6,447
New Mexico 5,023 5,578 6,570 7,421 6,504
New York 55,009 51,985 51,955 52,852 51,199
North Carolina 4,679 4,099 4,254 4,110 3,710
North Dakota 1,005 1,085 1,196 1,276 1,344
Ohio 24,011 22,696 20,510 18,690 19,294
Oklahoma 9,205 10,682 12,019 12,807 12,323
Oregon 7,054 7,959 7,784 8,010 9,034
Pennsylvania 3,435 3,356 3,279 3,648 4,653
Puerto Rico 5,296 6,080 5,710 5,245 -
Rhode Island 2,555 2,510 2,622 2,464 2,309
South Carolina 8,677 8,001 9,497 11,418 13,210
South Dakota 839 691 645 694 881
Tennessee 8,764 9,100 10,280 9,881 9,611
Texas 49,779 51,376 52,226 50,880 45,926
Utah 7,057 6,955 7,447 7,303 7,284
Vermont 535 639 655 732 695
Virginia 4,883 4,775 5,392 5,014 4,901
Washington 5,621 6,108 6,156 5,044 4,207
West Virginia 4,171 4,245 4,472 4,402 5,242
Wisconsin 3,920 3,689 3,921 3,904 3,886
Wyoming 528 552 636 716 728
National 508,146 509,474 519,507 521,686 518,136

Table 5–2 Perpetrators by Age, 2016 (continues next page)
Total
State 6–11 12–17 18–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 65–74 75 and Older Unknown Perpetrators
Alabama - 309 1,439 2,949 1,445 434 143 43 518 - 7,280
Alaska 1 5 358 1,111 627 213 69 8 6 26 2,424
Arizona 5 67 2,169 5,064 2,613 847 195 52 95 - 11,107
Arkansas 154 387 1,671 3,156 1,608 553 202 69 30 391 8,221
California 79 694 8,876 22,671 14,735 5,381 1,571 425 126 746 55,304
Colorado 39 280 1,582 4,173 2,354 802 260 71 2 255 9,818
Connecticut 4 34 966 2,626 1,694 744 162 41 11 103 6,385
Delaware 3 35 163 574 329 132 37 8 - - 1,281
District of Columbia - 4 110 410 272 85 21 5 1 53 961
Florida - 106 4,435 13,869 7,829 2,976 1,054 357 84 623 31,333
Georgia - - - - - - - - - - -
Hawaii - 5 169 517 324 107 35 3 5 30 1,195
Idaho - 8 325 673 445 146 37 14 2 - 1,650
Illinois 33 522 4,025 8,633 4,805 1,672 471 147 31 329 20,668
Indiana 17 606 4,601 9,571 4,981 1,501 456 130 39 188 22,090
Iowa 5 101 1,178 2,963 1,536 458 127 48 10 11 6,437
Kansas 11 181 277 777 467 167 75 29 4 29 2,017
Kentucky 1 79 2,257 5,837 3,223 1,074 362 89 50 3 12,975
Louisiana 1 59 1,778 4,509 2,330 643 258 76 24 4 9,682
Maine - 15 493 1,463 811 271 74 22 - 9 3,158
Maryland 44 221 801 2,067 1,316 604 216 71 511 18 5,869
Massachusetts 2 163 3,717 10,718 6,880 2,894 772 190 33 520 25,889
Michigan 28 173 6,194 13,717 7,442 2,500 675 172 34 22 30,957
Minnesota 18 201 884 2,546 1,451 508 147 31 6 - 5,792
Mississippi 28 216 1,422 3,476 2,128 688 292 79 16 23 8,368
Missouri - 34 764 1,961 1,139 472 170 75 12 138 4,765
Montana - 12 431 1,042 574 171 45 9 4 44 2,332
Nebraska - 34 357 927 464 149 33 11 1 - 1,976
Nevada - 23 680 1,768 1,050 331 113 31 2 - 3,998
New Hampshire - 19 135 385 168 75 22 6 0 6 816
New Jersey - 25 821 2,637 1,771 756 201 57 19 160 6,447
New Mexico 2 48 1,064 2,683 1,450 439 138 32 12 636 6,504
New York 7 241 7,284 19,481 14,673 6,979 1,919 466 116 33 51,199
North Carolina 1 15 565 1,634 978 336 135 32 14 - 3,710
North Dakota - 5 221 621 327 103 34 3 - 30 1,344
Ohio 107 1,078 3,571 7,479 3,856 1,353 503 155 37 1,155 19,294
Oklahoma - 77 2,379 5,591 2,798 888 309 77 27 177 12,323
Oregon 4 242 1,414 3,829 2,307 784 247 66 23 118 9,034
Pennsylvania - 222 764 1,567 1,121 501 209 80 26 163 4,653
Puerto Rico - - - - - - - - - - -
Rhode Island 6 58 427 986 557 193 47 16 3 16 2,309
South Carolina - 51 1,938 6,154 3,488 1,094 333 128 23 1 13,210
South Dakota - 5 157 412 191 71 18 7 - 20 881
Tennessee 26 442 1,604 3,405 1,697 700 267 98 17 1,355 9,611
Texas 156 1,598 10,175 19,829 9,394 3,111 1,157 380 85 41 45,926
Utah 60 605 1,246 2,772 1,823 544 164 51 16 3 7,284
Vermont - 50 126 252 147 67 29 10 4 10 695
Virginia 1 50 749 1,999 1,145 442 156 42 16 301 4,901
Washington - 11 539 1,801 1,212 424 130 29 7 54 4,207
West Virginia 1 12 882 2,175 1,232 376 115 40 4 405 5,242
Wisconsin 10 60 590 1,546 754 241 74 20 5 586 3,886
Wyoming - 14 111 332 168 51 17 4 2 29 728
National 854 9,502 88,884 217,338 126,129 46,051 14,296 4,105 2,113 8,864 518,136
Reporting States 30 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 45 42 50

Table 5–2 Perpetrators by Age, 2016
6–11 Rate 12–17 Rate 18–24 Rate 25–34 Rate 35–44 Rate 45–54 Rate 55–64 Rate 65–74 Rate 75 and Older
per 1,000 per 1,000 per 1,000 per 1,000 per 1,000 per 1,000 per 1,000 per 1,000 Rate per
State Children Children Adults Adults Adults Adults Adults Adults 1,000 Adults
Alabama - 0.8 3.1 4.6 2.4 0.7 0.2 0.1 1.6
Alaska 0.0 0.1 4.8 9.2 6.8 2.3 0.7 0.2 0.2
Arizona 0.0 0.1 3.2 5.4 3.1 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.2
Arkansas 0.6 1.6 5.9 8.0 4.4 1.5 0.5 0.2 0.1
California 0.0 0.2 2.3 3.8 2.9 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.1
Colorado 0.1 0.7 3.0 5.0 3.2 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.0
Connecticut 0.0 0.1 2.7 5.9 4.0 1.4 0.3 0.1 0.0
Delaware 0.0 0.5 1.9 4.5 3.0 1.0 0.3 0.1 -
District of Columbia - 0.1 1.4 2.6 2.8 1.1 0.3 0.1 0.0
Florida - 0.1 2.5 5.2 3.2 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.0
Georgia - - - - - - - - -
Hawaii - 0.1 1.3 2.5 1.8 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0
Idaho - 0.1 2.1 3.0 2.2 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0
Illinois 0.0 0.5 3.3 4.9 2.9 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.0
Indiana 0.0 1.1 7.0 11.1 6.1 1.7 0.5 0.2 0.1
Iowa 0.0 0.4 3.7 7.5 4.2 1.2 0.3 0.2 0.0
Kansas 0.0 0.8 0.9 2.0 1.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0
Kentucky 0.0 0.2 5.4 10.1 5.8 1.8 0.6 0.2 0.2
Louisiana 0.0 0.2 4.0 6.6 4.1 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.1
Maine 0.0 0.2 4.5 9.3 5.4 1.4 0.4 0.1 -
Maryland 0.1 0.5 1.5 2.5 1.7 0.7 0.3 0.1 1.4
Massachusetts 0.0 0.3 5.3 11.3 8.3 3.0 0.8 0.3 0.1
Michigan 0.0 0.2 6.3 11.0 6.4 1.9 0.5 0.2 0.1
Minnesota 0.0 0.5 1.7 3.4 2.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0
Mississippi 0.1 0.9 4.8 8.8 5.8 1.8 0.8 0.3 0.1
Missouri - 0.1 1.3 2.4 1.6 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0
Montana - 0.2 4.3 7.8 4.8 1.4 0.3 0.1 0.1
Nebraska - 0.2 1.9 3.7 2.0 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0
Nevada - 0.1 2.7 4.1 2.7 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.0
New Hampshire - 0.2 1.1 2.4 1.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 -
New Jersey - 0.0 1.0 2.3 1.5 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0
New Mexico 0.0 0.3 5.3 9.6 6.0 1.7 0.5 0.2 0.1
New York 0.0 0.2 3.8 6.7 6.0 2.6 0.7 0.3 0.1
North Carolina 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.2 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0
North Dakota - 0.1 2.4 5.5 3.8 1.2 0.4 0.1 -
Ohio 0.1 1.2 3.3 5.0 2.8 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.0
Oklahoma - 0.2 6.2 10.3 5.8 1.9 0.6 0.2 0.1
Oregon 0.0 0.8 3.9 6.7 4.3 1.5 0.5 0.2 0.1
Pennsylvania - 0.2 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0
Puerto Rico - - - - - - - - -
Rhode Island 0.1 0.8 3.7 6.9 4.5 1.3 0.3 0.2 0.0
South Carolina - 0.1 4.1 9.4 5.8 1.7 0.5 0.2 0.1
South Dakota - 0.1 1.9 3.7 1.9 0.7 0.2 0.1 -
Tennessee 0.1 0.9 2.6 3.8 2.0 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.0
Texas 0.1 0.7 3.7 4.9 2.5 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.1
Utah 0.2 2.0 3.6 6.2 4.4 1.7 0.6 0.3 0.1
Vermont - 1.2 1.9 3.5 2.1 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.1
Virginia 0.0 0.1 0.9 1.7 1.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0
Washington - 0.0 0.8 1.7 1.3 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0
West Virginia 0.0 0.1 5.5 9.9 5.5 1.5 0.4 0.2 0.0
Wisconsin 0.0 0.1 1.1 2.1 1.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0
Wyoming - 0.3 2.0 4.1 2.4 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1
National 0.0 0.4 3.0 5.0 3.2 1.1 0.4 0.1 0.1

Table 5–3 Perpetrators by Sex, 2016
State Men Women Unknown Total Perpetrators Men Percent Women Percent Unknown Percent
Alabama 3,184 4,067 29 7,280 43.7 55.9 0.4
Alaska 1,062 1,338 24 2,424 43.8 55.2 1.0
Arizona 5,491 5,594 22 11,107 49.4 50.4 0.2
Arkansas 3,781 4,313 127 8,221 46.0 52.5 1.5
California 24,657 30,450 197 55,304 44.6 55.1 0.4
Colorado 4,689 5,072 57 9,818 47.8 51.7 0.6
Connecticut 2,947 3,400 38 6,385 46.2 53.2 0.6
Delaware 777 504 - 1,281 60.7 39.3 0.0
District of Columbia 287 653 21 961 29.9 68.0 2.2
Florida 14,819 15,946 568 31,333 47.3 50.9 1.8
Georgia - - - - - - -
Hawaii 522 667 6 1,195 43.7 55.8 0.5
Idaho 671 979 - 1,650 40.7 59.3 -
Illinois 9,804 10,677 187 20,668 47.4 51.7 0.9
Indiana 9,829 12,235 26 22,090 44.5 55.4 0.1
Iowa 2,955 3,474 8 6,437 45.9 54.0 0.1
Kansas 1,205 808 4 2,017 59.7 40.1 0.2
Kentucky 5,315 7,564 96 12,975 41.0 58.3 0.7
Louisiana 3,527 6,128 27 9,682 36.4 63.3 0.3
Maine 1,652 1,503 3 3,158 52.3 47.6 0.1
Maryland 2,798 2,761 310 5,869 47.7 47.0 5.3
Massachusetts 10,610 14,250 1,029 25,889 41.0 55.0 4.0
Michigan 12,558 18,372 27 30,957 40.6 59.3 0.1
Minnesota 2,713 3,079 - 5,792 46.8 53.2 -
Mississippi 3,272 5,026 70 8,368 39.1 60.1 0.8
Missouri 2,639 2,030 96 4,765 55.4 42.6 2.0
Montana 927 1,306 99 2,332 39.8 56.0 4.2
Nebraska 907 1,069 - 1,976 45.9 54.1 -
Nevada 1,695 2,302 1 3,998 42.4 57.6 0.0
New Hampshire 381 431 4 816 46.7 52.8 0.5
New Jersey 2,785 3,647 15 6,447 43.2 56.6 0.2
New Mexico 2,522 3,865 117 6,504 38.8 59.4 1.8
New York 23,569 27,576 54 51,199 46.0 53.9 0.1
North Carolina - - - - - - -
North Dakota 515 823 6 1,344 38.3 61.2 0.4
Ohio 9,502 9,458 334 19,294 49.2 49.0 1.7
Oklahoma 5,806 6,461 56 12,323 47.1 52.4 0.5
Oregon 4,952 4,041 41 9,034 54.8 44.7 0.5
Pennsylvania 3,022 1,567 64 4,653 64.9 33.7 1.4
Rhode Island 1,113 1,190 6 2,309 48.2 51.5 0.3
South Carolina 5,092 8,102 16 13,210 38.5 61.3 0.1
South Dakota 321 541 19 881 36.4 61.4 2.2
Tennessee 4,639 4,548 424 9,611 48.3 47.3 4.4
Texas 20,817 25,010 99 45,926 45.3 54.5 0.2
Utah 4,005 3,275 4 7,284 55.0 45.0 0.1
Vermont 469 226 - 695 67.5 32.5 -
Virginia 2,214 2,585 102 4,901 45.2 52.7 2.1
Washington 1,948 2,244 15 4,207 46.3 53.3 0.4
West Virginia 2,237 3,002 3 5,242 42.7 57.3 0.1
Wisconsin 1,719 1,719 448 3,886 44.2 44.2 11.5
Wyoming 313 414 1 728 43.0 56.9 0.1
National 233,234 276,292 4,900 514,426 45.3 53.7 1.0
Reporting States 49 49 44 49 - - -

Table 5–4 Perpetrators by Race and Ethnicity, 2016 (continues next page)
American
African- Indian or Pacific Total
State American Alaska Native Asian Hispanic Multiple Race Islander White Unknown Perpetrators
Alabama 1,899 10 10 220 - 9 4,952 180 7,280
Alaska 75 1,187 24 60 98 46 602 332 2,424
Arizona 1,129 506 39 3,631 166 24 4,435 1,177 11,107
Arkansas 1,410 16 21 397 309 43 5,795 230 8,221
California 7,750 545 1,619 26,312 - 257 15,015 3,806 55,304
Colorado 746 39 51 2,273 123 14 3,821 2,751 9,818
Connecticut 1,491 10 45 1,930 82 3 2,644 180 6,385
Delaware 549 - 7 156 5 - 559 5 1,281
District of Columbia 587 - 2 101 4 1 15 251 961
Florida 9,089 44 153 4,488 254 13 15,778 1,514 31,333
Georgia - - - - - - - - -
Hawaii 34 4 164 44 315 291 287 56 1,195
Idaho 12 32 2 145 5 7 1,353 94 1,650
Illinois 6,084 16 171 3,128 133 10 10,750 376 20,668
Indiana 3,605 16 51 1,080 366 11 16,782 179 22,090
Iowa 826 82 43 429 63 16 4,874 104 6,437
Kansas 203 11 5 184 28 3 1,479 104 2,017
Kentucky 1,382 7 22 275 214 11 10,716 348 12,975
Louisiana 4,038 20 22 245 29 9 4,955 364 9,682
Maine 69 34 6 77 61 2 2,200 709 3,158
Maryland 2,359 14 38 491 - 4 1,953 1,010 5,869
Massachusetts 3,192 53 385 5,348 326 13 10,587 5,985 25,889
Michigan 7,872 116 105 1,724 1,408 6 18,194 1,532 30,957
Minnesota 1,362 459 181 486 456 8 2,778 62 5,792
Mississippi 2,660 13 11 127 20 8 4,694 835 8,368
Missouri 818 8 8 154 11 3 3,470 293 4,765
Montana 26 371 - 77 42 3 1,592 221 2,332
Nebraska 258 118 16 282 40 2 1,133 127 1,976
Nevada 887 30 52 804 78 30 1,680 437 3,998
New Hampshire 17 2 4 30 7 1 673 82 816
New Jersey 1,944 4 87 1,577 29 4 2,611 191 6,447
New Mexico 161 505 6 3,664 67 3 1,636 462 6,504
New York 14,156 261 1,074 11,249 566 17 18,924 4,952 51,199
North Carolina 1,034 104 24 327 53 1 2,087 80 3,710
North Dakota 58 272 3 59 28 4 854 66 1,344
Ohio 4,717 14 37 631 530 9 12,233 1,123 19,294
Oklahoma 1,264 646 20 1,475 2,679 5 6,130 104 12,323
Oregon 381 221 62 821 154 42 6,215 1,138 9,034
Pennsylvania 1,081 5 13 348 87 - 2,719 400 4,653
Puerto Rico - - - - - - - - -
Rhode Island 342 7 33 500 45 4 1,257 121 2,309
South Carolina 4,479 20 21 452 104 5 7,712 417 13,210
South Dakota 39 347 2 33 67 2 355 36 881
Tennessee - - - - - - - - -
Texas 8,649 62 282 17,184 465 44 17,995 1,245 45,926
Utah 239 144 54 1,268 57 89 5,390 43 7,284
Vermont 19 - 2 1 - 1 642 30 695
Virginia 1,373 5 42 455 29 13 2,636 348 4,901
Washington 351 235 70 505 188 55 2,494 309 4,207
West Virginia 211 1 2 30 91 1 4,863 43 5,242
Wisconsin 661 163 48 238 50 2 2,183 541 3,886
Wyoming 12 22 1 68 - - 600 25 728
National 101,600 6,801 5,140 95,583 9,932 1,149 253,302 35,018 508,525

Table 5–4 Perpetrators by Race and Ethnicity, 2016
American
African- Indian or Pacific
American Alaska Native Hispanic Multiple Race Islander Unknown
State Percent Percent Asian Percent Percent Percent Percent White Percent Percent
Alabama 26.1 0.1 0.1 3.0 0.0 0.1 68.0 2.5
Alaska 3.1 49.0 1.0 2.5 4.0 1.9 24.8 13.7
Arizona 10.2 4.6 0.4 32.7 1.5 0.2 39.9 10.6
Arkansas 17.2 0.2 0.3 4.8 3.8 0.5 70.5 2.8
California 14.0 1.0 2.9 47.6 - 0.5 27.1 6.9
Colorado 7.6 0.4 0.5 23.2 1.3 0.1 38.9 28.0
Connecticut 23.4 0.2 0.7 30.2 1.3 0.0 41.4 2.8
Delaware 42.9 - 0.5 12.2 0.4 0.0 43.6 0.4
District of Columbia 61.1 - 0.2 10.5 0.4 0.1 1.6 26.1
Florida 29.0 0.1 0.5 14.3 0.8 0.0 50.4 4.8
Georgia - - - - - - - -
Hawaii 2.8 0.3 13.7 3.7 26.4 24.4 24.0 4.7
Idaho 0.7 1.9 0.1 8.8 0.3 0.4 82.0 5.7
Illinois 29.4 0.1 0.8 15.1 0.6 0.0 52.0 1.8
Indiana 16.3 0.1 0.2 4.9 1.7 0.0 76.0 0.8
Iowa 12.8 1.3 0.7 6.7 1.0 0.2 75.7 1.6
Kansas 10.1 0.5 0.2 9.1 1.4 0.1 73.3 5.2
Kentucky 10.7 0.1 0.2 2.1 1.6 0.1 82.6 2.7
Louisiana 41.7 0.2 0.2 2.5 0.3 0.1 51.2 3.8
Maine 2.2 1.1 0.2 2.4 1.9 0.1 69.7 22.5
Maryland 40.2 0.2 0.6 8.4 - 0.1 33.3 17.2
Massachusetts 12.3 0.2 1.5 20.7 1.3 0.1 40.9 23.1
Michigan 25.4 0.4 0.3 5.6 4.5 0.0 58.8 4.9
Minnesota 23.5 7.9 3.1 8.4 7.9 0.1 48.0 1.1
Mississippi 31.8 0.2 0.1 1.5 0.2 0.1 56.1 10.0
Missouri 17.2 0.2 0.2 3.2 0.2 0.1 72.8 6.1
Montana 1.1 15.9 0.0 3.3 1.8 0.1 68.3 9.5
Nebraska 13.1 6.0 0.8 14.3 2.0 0.1 57.3 6.4
Nevada 22.2 0.8 1.3 20.1 2.0 0.8 42.0 10.9
New Hampshire 2.1 0.2 0.5 3.7 0.9 0.1 82.5 10.0
New Jersey 30.2 0.1 1.3 24.5 0.4 0.1 40.5 3.0
New Mexico 2.5 7.8 0.1 56.3 1.0 0.0 25.2 7.1
New York 27.6 0.5 2.1 22.0 1.1 0.0 37.0 9.7
North Carolina 27.9 2.8 0.6 8.8 1.4 0.0 56.3 2.2
North Dakota 4.3 20.2 0.2 4.4 2.1 0.3 63.5 4.9
Ohio 24.4 0.1 0.2 3.3 2.7 0.0 63.4 5.8
Oklahoma 10.3 5.2 0.2 12.0 21.7 0.0 49.7 0.8
Oregon 4.2 2.4 0.7 9.1 1.7 0.5 68.8 12.6
Pennsylvania 23.2 0.1 0.3 7.5 1.9 0.0 58.4 8.6
Puerto Rico - - - - - - - -
Rhode Island 14.8 0.3 1.4 21.7 1.9 0.2 54.4 5.2
South Carolina 33.9 0.2 0.2 3.4 0.8 0.0 58.4 3.2
South Dakota 4.4 39.4 0.2 3.7 7.6 0.2 40.3 4.1
Tennessee - - - - - - - -
Texas 18.8 0.1 0.6 37.4 1.0 0.1 39.2 2.7
Utah 3.3 2.0 0.7 17.4 0.8 1.2 74.0 0.6
Vermont 2.7 - 0.3 0.1 - 0.1 92.4 4.3
Virginia 28.0 0.1 0.9 9.3 0.6 0.3 53.8 7.1
Washington 8.3 5.6 1.7 12.0 4.5 1.3 59.3 7.3
West Virginia 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.7 0.0 92.8 0.8
Wisconsin 17.0 4.2 1.2 6.1 1.3 0.1 56.2 13.9
Wyoming 1.6 3.0 0.1 9.3 - - 82.4 3.4
National 20.0 1.3 1.0 18.8 2.0 0.2 49.8 6.9
Reporting States - - - - - - - -

Table 5–5 Perpetrators by Relationship to Their Victims, 2016 (continues next page)
Child Daycare
State Parent Provider Foster Parent Friend and Neighbor Legal Guardian Other Other Professional
Alabama 5,179 20 5 136 19 587 24
Alaska 2,040 - 23 - 5 63 -
Arizona 9,682 - 35 - 37 532 -
Arkansas 5,446 28 7 169 24 945 29
California 48,032 - 121 - - 1 -
Colorado 7,158 52 18 4 8 441 15
Connecticut 4,951 15 2 39 104 288 8
Delaware 1,028 1 1 25 - 22 1
District of Columbia 887 1 2 - 4 19 -
Florida 22,079 55 13 - 37 971 176
Georgia - - - - - - -
Hawaii 1,056 - 8 - 10 47 -
Idaho 1,390 2 1 1 31 - -
Illinois 15,807 229 67 - - 491 67
Indiana 16,610 68 33 494 69 1,358 16
Iowa 5,440 36 7 - 10 297 -
Kansas 1,236 - 16 12 - 381 -
Kentucky 10,338 19 32 235 185 - -
Louisiana - - - - - - -
Maine 2,586 6 9 - 3 37 -
Maryland 3,414 30 28 - 9 511 -
Massachusetts 21,016 63 89 - 150 474 54
Michigan 25,310 2 50 2,152 136 225 1
Minnesota 4,403 54 49 24 54 115 5
Mississippi 6,188 10 50 92 3 357 9
Missouri 2,845 25 19 182 - 429 14
Montana 2,082 7 9 2 9 10 -
Nebraska 1,651 7 6 - 2 60 -
Nevada 3,527 - 7 199 - 6 -
New Hampshire 690 - - - 6 - -
New Jersey 5,197 57 18 73 - 101 34
New Mexico 5,546 - 2 7 31 51 -
New York 43,242 189 192 - 189 768 -
North Carolina 2,409 16 17 - - - -
North Dakota 1,113 - - 59 - - -
Ohio 11,447 32 75 100 - 3,015 41
Oklahoma 9,915 51 108 - 69 819 -
Oregon 6,703 21 42 103 27 184 -
Pennsylvania 2,496 17 20 77 9 486 101
Rhode Island 1,786 29 24 - 11 103 -
South Carolina 11,361 6 15 - 48 307 -
South Dakota 726 3 2 - 2 16 -
Tennessee 5,693 10 13 563 71 1,931 7
Texas 35,181 289 45 157 - 1,116 190
Utah 4,957 20 8 176 23 554 13
Vermont 370 5 - 112 - 58 4
Virginia 3,565 87 13 - 17 291 66
Washington 3,557 17 15 6 - 43 -
West Virginia 4,033 - 11 - 26 412 6
Wisconsin 2,480 25 7 31 4 311 19
Wyoming 586 4 4 - 10 40 1
National Total 394,434 1,608 1,338 5,230 1,452 19,273 901
National Percent 77.6 0.3 0.3 1.0 0.3 3.8 0.2

Table 5–5 Perpetrators by Relationship to Their Victims, 2016
Group Home and
Residential Facility Unmarried Partner Multiple
State Other Relative Staff of Parent Unknown Relationships Total Perpetrators
Alabama 553 6 262 155 334 7,280
Alaska 87 - 70 10 126 2,424
Arizona 468 22 240 1 90 11,107
Arkansas 862 6 173 210 322 8,221
California 2,336 8 3,005 - 1,801 55,304
Colorado 746 28 8 807 533 9,818
Connecticut 273 1 340 1 363 6,385
Delaware 92 1 109 - 1 1,281
District of Columbia 26 1 - - 21 961
Florida 1,650 - 1,692 2,362 2,298 31,333
Georgia - - - - - -
Hawaii 25 1 - 2 46 1,195
Idaho 40 - 107 30 48 1,650
Illinois 1,400 25 1,116 239 1,227 20,668
Indiana 1,158 3 - 829 1,452 22,090
Iowa 216 9 267 5 150 6,437
Kansas 303 6 - 7 56 2,017
Kentucky 678 3 626 226 633 12,975
Louisiana - - - - - -
Maine 100 4 204 7 202 3,158
Maryland 481 14 - 1,176 206 5,869
Massachusetts 934 82 1,358 273 1,396 25,889
Michigan 1,008 7 64 45 1,957 30,957
Minnesota 417 16 359 9 287 5,792
Mississippi 699 11 316 292 341 8,368
Missouri 466 12 461 81 231 4,765
Montana 64 3 121 3 22 2,332
Nebraska 88 1 68 19 74 1,976
Nevada 95 15 1 10 138 3,998
New Hampshire 39 - 14 40 27 816
New Jersey 378 3 331 47 208 6,447
New Mexico 317 - 278 53 219 6,504
New York 3,206 643 207 2,014 549 51,199
North Carolina 161 24 186 707 190 3,710
North Dakota 27 - - 54 91 1,344
Ohio 2,131 24 145 1,100 1,184 19,294
Oklahoma 510 49 46 80 676 12,323
Oregon 562 22 624 108 638 9,034
Pennsylvania 825 19 419 78 106 4,653
Rhode Island 32 43 132 3 146 2,309
South Carolina 466 9 433 1 564 13,210
South Dakota 29 2 39 19 43 881
Tennessee 1,064 6 101 6 146 9,611
Texas 4,759 100 3,281 111 697 45,926
Utah 708 - 299 111 415 7,284
Vermont 57 - 59 7 23 695
Virginia 367 9 145 134 207 4,901
Washington 152 - 293 21 103 4,207
West Virginia 253 - 9 182 310 5,242
Wisconsin 326 8 285 245 145 3,886
Wyoming 36 4 10 1 32 728
National Total 31,670 1,250 18,303 11,921 21,074 508,454
National Percent 6.2 0.2 3.6 2.3 4.1 100.0
Reporting States 49 39 43 46 49 49

Services
CHAPTER 6
The mandate of child protection is not only to investigate or assess maltreatment allegations, but also
to provide services. Child protective services (CPS) agencies promote children’s safety and well-being
with a broad range of prevention activities and by providing services to children who were maltreated
or are at-risk of maltreatment. CPS agencies may use several options for providing services: agency
staff may provide services directly to children and their families, the agency may hire a service
provider, or CPS may work with other agencies (e.g., public health agencies).
The National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) collects data for 26 types of services
including adoption, employment, mental health, and substance abuse. States have their own typolo-
gies of services, which they map to the NCANDS services categories. (See chapter 1 for more infor-
mation about what NCANDS collects.) In this chapter, services are examined from two perspectives:
(1) Prevention services–consists of aggregated data from states about the use of various funding
streams for prevention services, which are provided to parents whose children are at-risk of abuse
and neglect. These services are designed to improve child-rearing competencies of the parents
and other caregivers via education on the developmental stages of childhood and provision of
other types of assistance.
(2) Postresponse services–consists of case-level data about children who received services that were
provided as a result of an investigation response or alternative response. Postresponse services
address the safety of the child and usually are based on an assessment of the family’s situation,
including service needs and family strengths.
Prevention Services (duplicate count of children)

States and local agencies determine who will receive prevention services, which services will be
offered, and how the services will be provided. Prevention services may be funded by the state or the
following federal programs:
■ Title I of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), as amended [P.L.100-294]—
The Grants to States for Child Abuse or Neglect Prevention and Treatment Programs (State Grant)
provides funds to states to improve CPS systems. The grant serves as a catalyst to assist states with
screening and investigating child abuse and neglect reports, creating and improving the use of
multidisciplinary teams to enhance investigations, improving risk and safety assessment protocols,
training CPS workers and mandated reporters, and improving services to infants with life-
threatening conditions.
Child Maltreatment 2016 chApter 6: Services 77

■ Title II of CAPTA, as amended [P.L. 100-294]—The Community-Based Grants for the Prevention
of Child Abuse and Neglect program (formerly the Community-Based Family Resource and
Support program) provides funding to a lead state agency (designated by the governor) to develop,
operate, expand, and enhance community-based, prevention-focused programs and activi-ties
designed to strengthen and support families to prevent child abuse and neglect. This program is
administratively known as the Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP) Program.
■ Title IV–B, Subpart 2, as amended [42.U.S.C. 629 et seq.] Promoting Safe and Stable Families—
The goal of this legislation is to keep families together by funding such services as prevention
intervention so that children do not have to be removed from their homes, services to develop
alternative placements if children cannot remain safely in the home, and family reunification
services to enable children to return to their homes, if appropriate.
■ Title XX of the Social Security Act, [42. U.S.C. 1397 et seq.], Social Services Block Grant
(SSBG)— Under this grant, states may use funds for such prevention services as child daycare,
child protective services, information and referral, counseling, and foster care, as well as other
services that meet the goal of preventing or remedying neglect, abuse, or exploitation of children.
For FFY 2016, 45 states reported approximately 1.9 million children received prevention services.
This is a decrease from FFY 2015 when 47 states reported approximately 2.3 million children
received prevention services. The decrease can be explained in part by states that reported prevention
data in 2015, but were not able to report prevention in 2016. Several states also mentioned in their
commentary or during data submission that they improved reporting by correcting errors or are no
longer reporting duplicated counts of children and families.
More information about increases and decreases in recipients and funding may be found in appendix
D. The discussion of prevention services counts children by funding source and may include duplica-
tion across sources or within sources as a child may receive multiple services. Funding sources with
the largest number of states reporting data are the Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Grants
with 36 states and Promoting Safe and Stable Families (35 states). “Other” funding source had the
second largest number of recipients. Fewer states reported data for the Child Abuse and Neglect Basic
State Grant and the Social Services Block Grant. States continue to work to improve reporting on
these funding sources. (See table 6–1 and related notes.)
States continue to work on improving the ability to measure prevention services. Some of the difficul-
ties with collecting and reporting these data are listed below:
■ Children and families may receive services under more than one funding stream and may be
counted more than once. Some programs count families, while others count children. Statistical
methods are used in this report to estimate the number of children if a family count was provided.
(See the Exhibit and Table Notes section).
■ Prevention services are often provided by local community-based agencies, which may not be
required to report on the number of clients they serve.
■ Agencies that receive funding through different streams also may report to different agencies.
Child welfare agencies may have difficulty collecting data from all funders or all funded agencies.

Postresponse Services (duplicate count of children)
All children and families who are involved with a child welfare agency receive services to some
degree. NCANDS and the Child Maltreatment report focus on only those services that were initiated
or continued as a result of the investigation response or alternative response. States continue to work
on improving the ability to report postresponse services data. Some states indicated that they are
only able to report on those services that the CPS agency provides and are not able to report on those
services provided by an external agency or vendors. The NCANDS Technical Team is continuing to
work with states on improving reporting in this area.
The analyses include those services that were provided between the report date (date the maltreat-
ment report was received) and up to 90 days after the disposition date (date a determination about the
maltreatment occurred). For services that were begun prior to the report date, if they continued past
the report disposition date, this would imply that the investigation or alternative response reaffirmed
the need and continuation of the services, and they should be reported to NCANDS as postresponse
services. Services that do not meet the definition of postresponse services are those that (1) began
prior to the report date, but did not continue past the disposition date or (2) began more than 90 days
after the disposition date.
Approximately 1.3 million children received postresponse services from a CPS agency. More than
three-fifths (60.6%) of duplicate victims and one-third (29.7%) of duplicate nonvictims received
postresponse services. (See table 6–2 and related notes.) Children who received postresponse services
are counted per response by CPS and may be counted more than once. States provided data on the
start of postresponse services. For those children who were not already receiving services at the start
of the report, the average number of days from receipt of a report to initiation of services was 47 days.
(See table 6–3 and related notes.)
Table 6–4 displays the children who received foster care services and were removed from home. The
method of this analysis was changed in 2015. Only the children who were removed from their home
after the report date were counted. Previously, a child was counted if the service was initiated prior to
the report date, but continued after the report disposition date. This change was mainly made because
some children were already in foster care when the allegation of maltreatment was made. Readers and
researchers wanted to know the number of children who were removed as a result of the investigation
or alternative response. More than one-fifth (22.6%) of victims and fewer than 2.0 percent (1.9%) of
nonvictims were removed from their homes. Some states reported low percentages of victims and
nonvictims who received foster care services. The data suggest that those states may use non-CPS
providers for services delivery and those providers have difficulty collecting and reporting data in an
NCANDS format. (See table 6–4 and related notes.)
There may be several explanations as to why nonvictims were placed in foster care. The first has to do
with states’ policies. If one child in a household is deemed to be in danger or at-risk of maltreatment,
the state may remove all of the children in the household to ensure their safety. For example, if a CPS
worker finds a drug lab in a house or finds a severely intoxicated caregiver, the worker may remove
all children, even if there is only a maltreatment allegation for one child in the household. Another
reason for a nonvictim to be removed has to do with voluntary placements. This is when a parent
voluntarily agrees to place a child in foster care even if the child was not determined to be a victim of
maltreatment.
States also reported on the number of victims for whom some court action had been undertaken.
Court action may include any legal action taken by the CPS agency or the courts on behalf of the
child, including authorization to place a child in foster care and applying for temporary custody,
protective custody, dependency, or termination of parental rights. In other words, these include
children who were removed, as well as other children who may have had court action while remaining
at home. Based on 41 reporting states, 29.4 percent of victims had court actions. (See table 6–5 and
related notes.)
Twenty-five states reported 22.2 percent of victims received court-appointed representatives. These
numbers are likely to be an undercount given the statutory requirement in CAPTA that says, “in
every case involving an abused or neglected child, which results in a judicial proceeding, a Guardian
ad Litem...who may be an attorney or a court-appointed special advocate... shall be appointed to
represent the child in such proceedings...” States have provided the following reasons for not report-
ing these data: the data were provided by contracted vendors and are not available at the child level,
the court system is not able to interface with the child welfare system, and the court system does not
record contacts at the child-level. (See table 6–6 and related notes.)
History of Receiving Services (unique count of children)

Two data elements in the Agency File collect information on histories of victims with prior CPS
involvement. Based on data from 26 states, 14.8 percent of victims received family preservation
services within the previous 5 years. (See table 6–7 and related notes.) Data from 35 states shows
5.1 percent of victims were reunited with their families within the previous 5 years. As noted in State
Commentary, some states have revised or are in the process of revising their procedures for reporting
these data, and reporting may improve in the future. Several states subcontract family preservation
services to outside vendors and are not able to report these data to NCANDS. (See table 6–8 and
related notes.)
Part C of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

The CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 added new data collection requirements to NCANDS:
16) The number of children determined to be eligible for referral, and the number of children
referred, under subsection (b)(2)(B)(xxi), to agencies providing early intervention services
under part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.)
Subsection(b)(2)(B)(xxi) says:
provisions and procedures for referral of a child under the age of 3 who is involved in a
substantiated case of child abuse or neglect to early intervention services funded under
part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.)
Based on the new CAPTA requirements, in 2012 NCANDS added the following fields to the
Agency File:
■ Number of Children Eligible for Referral to Agencies Providing Early Intervention Services
Under Part C of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act: a unique count of the number of
victims eligible for referral to agencies providing early intervention services under Part C of the
Individuals with Disabilities Act.
Child Maltreatment 2016 Chapter 6: Services 80

■ Number of Children Referred to Agencies Providing Early Intervention Services Under Part C of
the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act: a unique count of the number of victims actually
referred to agencies providing early intervention services under Part C of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act.
Federal guidance asks for states to report the number of victims who were younger than 3 years who
were eligible for and were referred to these agencies; however, some states have policies in place to
allow older children to be considered eligible for referral and receipt of these services and these states
reported victims who were older than 3 years (see appendix D). Thirty states reported 90,043 victims
who were eligible for referral to agencies providing early intervention services and 24 states reported
25,723 victims were referred. Of the states that were able to report both the victims who were eligible
and referred (23 states), 67.0 of victims who were eligible were referred to the agencies. (See table 6–9
and related notes). This is the second year in which these data are presented in the Child Maltreatment
report. States are continuing to improve their reporting in these fields. The 2016 analysis includes
improved reporting from three additional states that were not able to pass data quality checks for FFY
2015. Technical assistance will continue to be provided to the states about reporting these data to
NCANDS.

provided below.
General
data from as many states as possible. States may be excluded from an analysis for data quality
issues. Exclusion rules are listed in the table notes below.
■ The data for all tables are from the Child File unless otherwise noted.
■ Due to the large number of categories, most services are defined in appendix B. The Child File
Codebook, which includes the services fields, is located on the Children’s Bureau website at
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/research-data-technology/reporting-systems/ncands
■ States that did not report at least 1.0 percent of children with services were excluded from analyses.

Table 6–1 Children Who Received Prevention Services by Funding Source, 2016
■ The number of total recipients is a duplicate count. Children may be counted more than once, under
a single funding source and across funding sources. Children who received prevention services may
have received them via CPS or other agencies.
■ Some programs maintain their data as counts of families rather than counts of children. If a family
count was provided, the number of families was multiplied by the average number of children per
family (1.89) and used as the estimate of the number of children who received services or added
to any counts of children that were also provided. The average number of children per family was
retrieved April 2017 from https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/families/cps-2016.html

Table 6–2 Children Who Received Postresponse Services, 2016
■ A child is counted each time that a CPS response was completed and services were provided.
■ The numbers of victims and nonvictims are duplicate counts.
■ This analysis includes only those services that continued past or were initiated after the completion
of the CPS response.

■ One state reports postresponse services for only victims and does not report on nonvictims who
received such services.

■ A few states reported that 100.0 percent of its victims, nonvictims, or both received services. These
states may be reporting case management services and information and referral services for all
children who received a CPS response. Technical assistance will be provided to these states to
improve the quality of reporting services data.
Table 6–3 Average Number of Days to Initiation of Services, 2016

■ A subset of children whose service date was the same day or later than the report date was con-
structed. The subset was created by excluding any report with a service date prior to the report date.
■ The number of children is a duplicate count.
■ A zero represents a state average of less than 1 day.
■ The average days to initiation of services was calculated by subtracting the report date from the
initiation of services date for each report and calculating the average for each state. The state aver-
age was rounded to a whole day.
■ The national average was calculated by summing the average number of days from the states and
dividing the total by the number of states reporting. The result was rounded to the nearest whole
day.
■ States were excluded from this analysis for having more than 80.0 percent of records with a service
that had a service date before the report date.

■ States were excluded from this analysis if more than 40.0 percent of records had the same report
date and service date.
Table 6–4 Children Who Received Foster Care Postresponse Services and Who had a
Removal Date on or After the Report Date, 2016
■ A child is counted each time that a CPS response was completed and services were provided.
■ Only the children who were removed from their home on or after the report date are counted.
■ The numbers of victims and nonvictims is a duplicate count.
■ States were excluded from this analysis if more than 35.0 percent of victims with foster care ser-
vices or more than 35.0 percent of nonvictims with foster care services did not have a removal date.
Table 6–5 Victims With Court Action, 2016

■ The number of victims is a duplicate count.
■ States were excluded from this analysis if fewer than 5.0 percent of victims had a court action.
Table 6–6 Victims With Court-Appointed Representatives, 2016

■ The number of victims is a duplicate count.
■ The NCANDS category of court-appointed representatives includes attorneys and court-appointed
special advocates who represent the interests of the child in a maltreatment hearing.
■ States were excluded from this analysis if fewer than 5.0 percent of victims had a court-appointed
representative.

Table 6–7 Victims Who Received Family Preservation Services Within the Previous 5
Years, 2016
■ States are continuing their work to improve the data collection and reporting on this field.
Table 6–8 Victims Who Were Reunited With Their Families Within the Previous 5
Years, 2016
■ Data are from the Child File and the Agency File.
■ States are continuing their work to improve the data collection and reporting on this field.
Table 6–9 IDEA: Victims Who Were Eligible and Victims Who Were Referred to Part C
Agencies, 2016

Table 6–1 Children Who Received Prevention Services by Funding Source, 2016
Community-Based
Child Abuse and Child Abuse Promoting Safe and Social Services Total Recipients of
State Neglect State Grant Prevention Grants Stable Families Block Grant Other Prevention Services
Alabama 796 658 57,560 17,048 - 76,062
Alaska - 274 264 273 336 1,147
Arizona - - 5,209 - 3,417 8,626
Arkansas 15,615 - 28,263 30,494 25,323 99,695
California 1,735 110,395 53,294 - 18,867 184,291
Colorado - 2,022 61,777 - - 63,799
Connecticut 801 1,699 - - 43,377 45,878
Delaware - - 2,623 1,366 5,109 9,098
District of Columbia 153 - 42 - 1,226 1,421
Florida - - 23,119 - - 23,119
Georgia - 20,545 20,600 - - 41,145
Hawaii - 5,117 - - - 5,117
Idaho - 6,750 935 1,720 109 9,514
Illinois 2,832 13,523 - 5,662 1,180 23,198
Indiana 33,814 2,237 495 422 11,951 48,919
Iowa 175 5,797 25,619 - - 31,591
Kansas - 43,031 3,961 - 255 47,247
Kentucky - 1,117 1,086 - 3,358 5,561
Louisiana - 18,627 4,491 8,304 10,751 42,173
Maine - - - - - -
Maryland - - - 12,872 - 12,872
Massachusetts - - - - - -
Michigan - - - - - -
Minnesota 3,524 4,603 942 14,172 - 23,241
Mississippi - 8,769 884 - - 9,653
Missouri - 1,046 1,669 - 4,998 7,713
Montana - 5,687 1,426 - - 7,113
Nebraska - 2,323 7,564 - - 9,887
Nevada 121 2,562 12,823 32,637 12,642 60,785
New Hampshire - 41,979 1,177 4,121 - 47,277
New Jersey 4,130 5,073 5,269 170,725 7,494 192,691
New Mexico - 165 235 - 418 818
New York - 5,611 - - 181,730 187,341
North Carolina - 188 5,334 - - 5,522
North Dakota - 450 3,585 - - 4,035
Ohio - - - 37,993 - 37,993
Oklahoma - 675 1,987 - 19,356 22,017
Oregon - - 7,779 6,857 3,820 18,456
Pennsylvania - 38,971 - - 13,083 52,054
Rhode Island - - 1,593 - - 1,593
South Carolina - 443 - - - 443
South Dakota - 2,579 - - - 2,579
Tennessee - - - - - -
Texas - 2,096 59,045 - 1,073 62,214
Utah - 1,313 579 - 39,587 41,479
Vermont - - - - - -
Virginia 47,678 822 - - 3,856 52,356
Washington 2,316 4,326 44,871 - - 51,512
West Virginia - 34,057 79,193 59,072 6,798 179,120
Wisconsin - - - - - -
Wyoming - 1,872 1,672 4,778 - 8,322
National 113,690 397,401 526,965 408,517 420,114 1,866,686
Reporting States 13 36 35 17 25 45

Table 6–2 Children Who Received Postresponse Services, 2016
Victims Who Victims Who Nonvictims Nonvictims
Received Received Who Received Who Received
Postresponse Postresponse Postresponse Postresponse
State Victims Services Services Percent Nonvictims Services Services Percent
Alabama 10,424 5,654 54.2 29,331 6,606 22.5
Alaska 3,739 2,039 54.5 11,403 1,636 14.3
Arizona 11,456 11,220 97.9 108,328 64,430 59.5
Arkansas 10,320 8,700 84.3 58,972 8,532 14.5
California 73,307 61,077 83.3 386,764 246,872 63.8
Colorado 11,943 3,020 25.3 38,828 1,527 3.9
Connecticut 8,488 8,243 97.1 18,122 16,659 91.9
Delaware 1,612 375 23.3 - - -
District of Columbia 1,446 411 28.4 13,659 676 4.9
Florida 44,155 18,165 41.1 307,695 13,556 4.4
Georgia 22,761 15,256 67.0 188,994 110,022 58.2
Hawaii 1,511 1,059 70.1 2,344 445 19.0
Idaho 1,931 1,363 70.6 12,429 3,190 25.7
Illinois 32,092 4,662 14.5 144,077 3,938 2.7
Indiana 30,460 22,682 74.5 168,021 41,961 25.0
Iowa 9,560 9,560 100.0 29,835 29,835 100.0
Kansas 2,492 1,462 58.7 32,045 9,115 28.4
Kentucky 22,031 15,453 70.1 66,909 3,961 5.9
Louisiana 11,968 6,230 52.1 26,114 2,121 8.1
Maine 3,609 1,254 34.7 9,999 372 3.7
Maryland 7,577 3,288 43.4 27,837 2,862 10.3
Massachusetts 36,228 34,157 94.3 60,481 42,804 70.8
Michigan 39,595 10,824 27.3 151,335 13,402 8.9
Minnesota 8,468 5,435 64.2 37,330 8,075 21.6
Mississippi 10,984 6,125 55.8 36,380 3,655 10.0
Missouri 5,741 3,703 64.5 95,535 26,768 28.0
Montana 3,315 1,992 60.1 14,223 1,251 8.8
Nebraska 2,899 2,416 83.3 25,348 11,981 47.3
Nevada 5,192 3,139 60.5 28,384 3,745 13.2
New Hampshire 929 603 64.9 16,429 1,036 6.3
New Jersey 8,670 5,703 65.8 79,940 22,474 28.1
New Mexico 8,646 3,691 42.7 21,081 2,659 12.6
New York - - - - - -
North Carolina - - - - - -
North Dakota 1,911 1,119 58.6 5,534 228 4.1
Ohio 25,569 16,571 64.8 99,057 33,547 33.9
Oklahoma 15,072 13,436 89.1 47,939 36,891 77.0
Oregon 13,582 5,753 42.4 54,239 5,409 10.0
Pennsylvania 4,542 1,344 29.6 38,722 2,928 7.6
Rhode Island 3,153 1,089 34.5 5,688 815 14.3
South Carolina 18,193 6,700 36.8 60,818 4,707 7.7
South Dakota 1,297 693 53.4 3,287 218 6.6
Tennessee 9,940 9,940 100.0 102,705 97,242 94.7
Texas 59,308 36,566 61.7 243,967 21,190 8.7
Utah 10,272 2,408 23.4 19,476 920 4.7
Vermont 911 269 29.5 4,568 871 19.1
Virginia 6,092 1,497 24.6 63,342 2,989 4.7
Washington 5,321 2,872 54.0 45,800 3,459 7.6
West Virginia 6,074 5,923 97.5 48,169 4,808 10.0
Wisconsin 5,045 2,173 43.1 36,401 2,757 7.6
Wyoming 1,004 816 81.3 5,069 3,934 77.6
National 640,835 388,130 60.6 3,132,953 929,079 29.7
Reporting States 49 49 - 48 48 -

Table 6–3 Average Number of Days to Initiation of Services, 2016
Children Who Received Services On Average Number of Days to
State Children Who Received Services or After the Report Date Initiation of Services
Alabama 12,260 6,056 103
Alaska 3,675 2,996 107
Arizona 75,650 74,337 119
Arkansas 17,232 16,484 39
California 307,949 289,561 22
Colorado 4,547 4,214 20
Connecticut - - -
Delaware 443 370 58
District of Columbia 1,087 1,080 39
Florida 31,721 24,564 33
Georgia 125,278 121,579 11
Hawaii 1,504 1,310 19
Idaho 4,553 4,523 42
Illinois 8,600 4,117 24
Indiana - - -
Iowa 39,395 39,395 22
Kansas 10,577 6,236 44
Kentucky 19,414 16,602 72
Louisiana 8,351 7,392 36
Maine 1,626 799 99
Maryland 6,150 4,754 54
Massachusetts 76,961 53,515 16
Michigan 24,226 12,983 41
Minnesota 13,510 13,510 48
Mississippi 9,780 9,686 27
Missouri 30,471 27,074 51
Montana 3,243 2,822 61
Nebraska 14,397 7,286 53
Nevada 6,884 3,486 39
New Hampshire 1,639 1,418 90
New Jersey 28,177 14,608 39
New Mexico 6,350 5,998 30
New York - - -
North Dakota 1,347 1,313 64
Ohio 50,118 44,504 35
Oklahoma 50,327 50,094 51
Oregon 11,162 10,394 43
Pennsylvania 4,272 3,552 31
Puerto Rico - - -
Rhode Island 1,904 1,117 30
South Carolina 11,407 8,478 35
South Dakota - - -
Tennessee 107,182 39,103 20
Texas 57,756 57,024 58
Utah - - -
Vermont 1,140 673 55
Virginia 4,486 3,249 71
Washington 6,331 5,152 29
West Virginia 10,731 7,368 47
Wisconsin 4,930 4,930 57
Wyoming 4,750 4,688 17
National 1,223,493 1,020,394 47

Table 6–4 Children Who Received Foster Care Postresponse Services and Who had
a Removal Date On or After the Report Date, 2016
Victims Who Nonvictims Who
Victims Who Received Foster Care Nonvictims Who Received Foster Care
Received Foster Care Postresponse Services Received Foster Care Postresponse Services
State Victims Postresponse Services Percent Nonvictims Postresponse Services Percent
Alabama 10,424 1,653 15.9 29,331 776 2.6
Alaska 3,739 152 4.1 11,403 71 0.6
Arizona 11,456 5,624 49.1 108,328 3,360 3.1
Arkansas 10,320 2,268 22.0 58,972 1,435 2.4
California 73,307 25,770 35.2 386,764 9,103 2.4
Colorado 11,943 1,756 14.7 38,828 444 1.1
Connecticut 8,488 1,471 17.3 18,122 609 3.4
Delaware 1,612 158 9.8 14,679 12 0.1
District of Columbia 1,446 347 24.0 13,659 66 0.5
Florida 44,155 13,803 31.3 307,695 4,585 1.5
Georgia 22,761 5,403 23.7 188,994 3,881 2.1
Hawaii 1,511 739 48.9 2,344 55 2.3
Idaho 1,931 937 48.5 12,429 137 1.1
Illinois 32,092 1,447 4.5 144,077 378 0.3
Indiana 30,460 10,974 36.0 168,021 2,509 1.5
Iowa 9,560 2,044 21.4 29,835 58 0.2
Kansas 2,492 246 9.9 32,045 796 2.5
Kentucky 22,031 834 3.8 66,909 111 0.2
Louisiana 11,968 3,013 25.2 26,114 386 1.5
Maine 3,609 600 16.6 - - -
Maryland 7,577 747 9.9 27,837 198 0.7
Massachusetts 36,228 5,207 14.4 60,481 1,210 2.0
Michigan 39,595 5,197 13.1 151,335 1,719 1.1
Minnesota 8,468 2,331 27.5 37,330 2,231 6.0
Mississippi 10,984 2,221 20.2 36,380 472 1.3
Missouri 5,741 1,994 34.7 95,535 4,692 4.9
Montana 3,315 1,679 50.6 14,223 696 4.9
Nebraska 2,899 1,451 50.1 25,348 1,088 4.3
Nevada 5,192 2,209 42.5 28,384 878 3.1
New Hampshire 929 387 41.7 16,429 437 2.7
New Jersey 8,670 2,055 23.7 79,940 1,931 2.4
New Mexico 8,646 1,380 16.0 21,081 493 2.3
New York - - - - - -
North Carolina - - - - - -
North Dakota 1,911 313 16.4 5,534 31 0.6
Ohio 25,569 5,327 20.8 99,057 2,768 2.8
Oklahoma 15,072 2,108 14.0 47,939 27 0.1
Oregon 13,582 4,008 29.5 54,239 1,597 2.9
Pennsylvania - - - - - -
Rhode Island 3,153 562 17.8 5,688 139 2.4
South Carolina 18,193 2,751 15.1 60,818 340 0.6
South Dakota 1,297 684 52.7 3,287 192 5.8
Tennessee 9,940 1,507 15.2 102,705 2,512 2.4
Texas 59,308 11,880 20.0 243,967 1,549 0.6
Utah 10,272 1,217 11.8 19,476 35 0.2
Vermont 911 139 15.3 4,568 220 4.8
Virginia 6,092 1,225 20.1 63,342 1,158 1.8
Washington 5,321 2,139 40.2 45,800 1,538 3.4
West Virginia 6,074 1,474 24.3 48,169 436 0.9
Wisconsin 5,045 1,952 38.7 36,401 2,357 6.5
Wyoming 1,004 483 48.1 - - -
National 636,293 143,866 22.6 3,093,842 59,716 1.9
Reporting States 48 48 - 46 46 -

Table 6–5 Victims With Court Action, 2016
State Victims Victims With Court Action Victims With Court Action Percent
Alabama - - -
Alaska - - -
Arizona 11,456 5,402 47.2
Arkansas 10,320 2,576 25.0
California 73,307 26,010 35.5
Colorado 11,943 2,540 21.3
Connecticut 8,488 2,924 34.4
Delaware 1,612 291 18.1
Florida 44,155 16,599 37.6
Georgia 22,761 5,403 23.7
Hawaii 1,511 969 64.1
Idaho 1,931 1,140 59.0
Illinois - - -
Indiana 30,460 21,992 72.2
Iowa 9,560 3,623 37.9
Kansas 2,492 977 39.2
Kentucky 22,031 4,036 18.3
Louisiana 11,968 3,050 25.5
Maine - - -
Maryland 7,577 1,239 16.4
Michigan 39,595 5,915 14.9
Minnesota 8,468 2,409 28.4
Mississippi - - -
Missouri 5,741 2,001 34.9
Montana 3,315 1,908 57.6
Nebraska 2,899 1,806 62.3
Nevada 5,192 2,769 53.3
New Jersey 8,670 1,760 20.3
New Mexico 8,646 1,383 16.0
New York - - -
Ohio 25,569 6,036 23.6
Oklahoma 15,072 4,293 28.5
Oregon 13,582 3,910 28.8
Pennsylvania - - -
Puerto Rico - - -
South Dakota - - -
Tennessee - - -
Texas 59,308 11,943 20.1
Utah 10,272 2,144 20.9
Vermont 911 202 22.2
Virginia 6,092 1,328 21.8
Washington 5,321 2,128 40.0
West Virginia 6,074 1,500 24.7
Wisconsin 5,045 564 11.2
Wyoming 1,004 460 45.8
National 564,208 165,724 29.4

Table 6–6 Victims With Court-Appointed Representatives, 2016
Victims With Court-Appointed Victims With Court-Appointed
Victims Representatives Representatives Percent
Alabama 10,424 698 6.7
Alaska - - -
Arizona 11,456 6,548 57.2
Arkansas - - -
California 73,307 23,288 31.8
Colorado - - -
Connecticut - - -
Delaware 1,612 291 18.1
District of Columbia - - -
Florida - - -
Georgia 22,761 5,193 22.8
Hawaii 1,511 943 62.4
Idaho - - -
Illinois - - -
Indiana 30,460 7,946 26.1
Iowa 9,560 1,695 17.7
Kansas - - -
Kentucky - - -
Louisiana - - -
Maine 3,609 997 27.6
Maryland - - -
Michigan 39,595 2,355 5.9
Minnesota 8,468 2,097 24.8
Mississippi 10,984 1,573 14.3
Missouri - - -
Montana 3,315 877 26.5
Nebraska 2,899 1,513 52.2
Nevada 5,192 642 12.4
New Jersey - - -
New Mexico 8,646 1,383 16.0
New York - - -
Ohio 25,569 4,127 16.1
Oklahoma 15,072 2,470 16.4
Oregon - - -
Pennsylvania - - -
Puerto Rico - - -
South Dakota - - -
Tennessee - - -
Texas - - -
Utah 10,272 2,144 20.9
Vermont 911 202 22.2
Virginia 6,092 1,304 21.4
Washington - - -
West Virginia - - -
Wisconsin - - -
Wyoming - - -
National 343,936 76,524 22.2

Table 6–7 Victims Who Received Family Preservation Services
Victims Who Received Family Victims Who Received Family
Preservation Services Within the Preservation Services Within the
State Victims Previous 5 Years Previous 5 Years Percent
Alabama - - -
Alaska - - -
Arizona - - -
Arkansas 9,707 1,962 20.2
California - - -
Colorado - - -
Connecticut - - -
Delaware - - -
Florida 41,894 6,493 15.5
Georgia 21,635 3,142 14.5
Hawaii - - -
Idaho 1,847 790 42.8
Illinois - - -
Indiana - - -
Iowa - - -
Kansas 2,403 689 28.7
Kentucky 20,010 1,040 5.2
Louisiana 11,289 1,006 8.9
Maine 3,446 607 17.6
Maryland 6,993 2,673 38.2
Michigan - - -
Minnesota 7,941 2,725 34.3
Mississippi 10,179 148 1.5
Missouri 5,481 747 13.6
Montana - - -
Nebraska 2,783 76 2.7
Nevada 4,891 54 1.1
New Jersey 8,264 869 10.5
New Mexico 7,526 662 8.8
New York - - -
North Dakota - - -
Ohio - - -
Oklahoma 14,308 600 4.2
Oregon 11,851 2,393 20.2
Pennsylvania - - -
Puerto Rico - - -
Rhode Island - - -
South Dakota - - -
Tennessee 9,665 1,076 11.1
Texas 57,374 8,503 14.8
Utah 9,614 148 1.5
Vermont 822 115 14.0
Virginia - - -
Washington 4,725 289 6.1
West Virginia - - -
Wisconsin - - -
Wyoming - - -
National 309,012 45,670 14.8

Table 6–8 Victims Who Were Reunited With Their Families
Victims Who Were Reunited With Victims Who Were Reunited With
Their Families Within the Previous Their Families Within the Previous
State Victims 5 Years 5 Years Percent
Alabama - - -
Alaska 3,142 221 7.0
Arizona - - -
Arkansas 9,707 226 2.3
California - - -
Colorado 11,226 280 2.5
Delaware 1,572 12 0.8
Florida 41,894 3,140 7.5
Georgia 21,635 881 4.1
Hawaii 1,491 62 4.2
Idaho 1,847 148 8.0
Illinois - - -
Indiana 28,430 2,176 7.7
Iowa - - -
Kansas 2,403 352 14.6
Kentucky 20,010 1,080 5.4
Louisiana 11,289 484 4.3
Maine 3,446 235 6.8
Maryland 6,993 767 11.0
Michigan - - -
Minnesota 7,941 632 8.0
Mississippi 10,179 46 0.5
Missouri 5,481 266 4.9
Montana - - -
Nebraska - - -
Nevada 4,891 349 7.1
New Jersey 8,264 534 6.5
New Mexico 7,526 508 6.7
New York - - -
North Dakota - - -
Ohio 23,635 1,102 4.7
Oklahoma 14,308 741 5.2
Oregon 11,851 1,201 10.1
Pennsylvania - - -
Puerto Rico - - -
South Carolina 17,331 203 1.2
South Dakota - - -
Tennessee 9,665 335 3.5
Texas 57,374 1,172 2.0
Utah 9,614 272 2.8
Vermont 822 20 2.4
Virginia - - -
West Virginia - - -
Wisconsin 4,822 336 7.0
Wyoming - - -
National 408,636 20,996 5.1

Table 6–9 IDEA: Victims Who Were Eligible and Victims Who
Were Referred to Part C Agencies, 2016
Victims Who Were Eligible for Victims Who Were Referred Victims Who Were Referred
State Referral to Part C Agencies to Part C Agencies to Part C Agencies Percent
Alabama 2,846 829 29.1
Alaska 801 801 100.0
Arizona 1,530 377 24.6
Arkansas 2,928 - -
California 19,976 - -
Colorado - - -
Connecticut - 1,992 -
Delaware - - -
District of Columbia 13 11 84.6
Florida - - -
Georgia 5,431 - -
Hawaii - - -
Idaho 630 488 77.5
Illinois - - -
Indiana - - -
Iowa 2,470 2,470 100.0
Kansas 396 359 90.7
Kentucky - - -
Louisiana 3,900 3,280 84.1
Maine - - -
Maryland - - -
Massachusetts 8,493 - -
Michigan - - -
Minnesota 1,974 1,909 96.7
Mississippi 981 168 17.1
Missouri 704 208 29.5
Montana - - -
Nebraska 767 767 100.0
Nevada 244 243 99.6
New Jersey 1,991 1,765 88.6
New Mexico 2,123 1,785 84.1
New York 14,232 - -
North Dakota 509 470 92.3
Ohio 4,867 4,867 100.0
Oklahoma 4,600 847 18.4
Oregon 2,855 - -
Pennsylvania 695 - -
Puerto Rico - - -
Rhode Island 911 301 33.0
South Dakota - - -
Tennessee - - -
Texas - - -
Utah - - -
Vermont - - -
Virginia - - -
West Virginia - - -
Wisconsin 1,236 1,003 81.1
Wyoming 496 496 100.0
National 90,043 25,723 -
National for States
Reporting Both Victims
Eligible and Referred 35,433 23,731 67.0
Reporting States for
States Reporting Both
Victims Eligible and Referred 23 23 -

Appendixes
Child Maltreatment 2016 Appendixes 93

Required CAPTA
Data Items
APPENDIX A
The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), as amended by P.L. 111–320, the
CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010, affirms, “Each State to which a grant is made under this
section shall annually work with the Secretary to provide, to the maximum extent practicable, a
report that includes the following:”
1) The number of children who were reported to the state during the year as victims of
child abuse or neglect.
2) Of the number of children described in paragraph (1), the number with respect to whom
such reports were—
a) substantiated;
b) unsubstantiated; or
c) determined to be false.
3) Of the number of children described in paragraph (2)—
a) the number that did not receive services during the year under the state program
funded under this section or an equivalent state program;
b) the number that received services during the year under the state program funded
under this section or an equivalent state program; and
c) the number that were removed from their families during the year by disposition of
the case.
4) The number of families that received preventive services, including use of differential
response, from the state during the year.
5) The number of deaths in the state during the year resulting from child abuse or neglect.
6) Of the number of children described in paragraph (5), the number of such children who
were in foster care.
7)
a) The number of child protective service personnel responsible for the—
i.) intake of reports filed in the previous year;
ii.) screening of such reports;
iii.) assessment of such reports; and
iv.) investigation of such reports.
b) The average caseload for the workers described in subparagraph (A).
8) The agency response time with respect to each such report with respect to initial
investigation of reports of child abuse or neglect.
Child Maltreatment 2016 A ppendix A: Required CAPTA Data Items 94

9) The response time with respect to the provision of services to families and children
where an allegation of child abuse or neglect has been made.
10) For child protective service personnel responsible for intake, screening, assessment, and
investigation of child abuse and neglect reports in the state—
a) information on the education, qualifications, and training requirements established
by the state for child protective service professionals, including for entry and
advancement in the profession, including advancement to supervisory positions;
b) data of the education, qualifications, and training of such personnel;
c) demographic information of the child protective service personnel; and
d) information on caseload or workload requirements for such personnel, including
requirements for average number and maximum number of cases per child protec-
tive service worker and supervisor.
11) The number of children reunited with their families or receiving family preservation
services that, within five years, result in subsequent substantiated reports of child abuse
or neglect, including the death of the child.
12) The number of children for whom individuals were appointed by the court to represent
the best interests of such children and the average number of out of court contacts
between such individuals and children.
13) The annual report containing the summary of activities of the citizen review panels of
the state required by subsection (c)(6).
14) The number of children under the care of the state child protection system who are
transferred into the custody of the state juvenile justice system.
15) The number of children referred to a child protective services system under subsection
(b)(2)(B)(ii).
16) The number of children determined to be eligible for referral, and the number of
children referred, under subsection (b)(2)(B)(xxi), to agencies providing early interven-
tion services under part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C.
1431 et seq.).
17) The number of children determined to be victims described in subsection (b)(2)(B)
(xxiv).
18) The number of infants—
a) identified under subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii);
b) for whom a plan of safe care was developed under subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii); and
c) for whom a referral was made for appropriate services, including services for
the affected family or caregiver, under subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii).
* The items listed under number (10), (13), and (14) are not collected by NCANDS. Items (17) and (18) in bold were
enacted with the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 (P.L. 114–22) and The Comprehensive Addiction
and Recovery Act (CARA) of 2016 (P.L. 114-198). It is anticipated that states will begin reporting these new items
with FFY 2018 data.
Child Maltreatment 2016 A ppendix A: Required CAPTA Data Items 95

Glossary
APPENDIX B
Acronyms
AFCARS: Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System
CAPTA: Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
CASA: Court-appointed special advocate
CBCAP: Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Program
CFSR: Child and Family Services Reviews
CHILD ID: Child identifier
CPS: Child protective services
FFY: Federal fiscal year
FIPS: Federal information processing standards
FTE: Full-time equivalent
GAL: Guardian ad litem
IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
NCANDS: National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System
NYTD: National Youth in Transition Database
MIECHV: Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program
OMB: Office of Management and Budget
PERPETRATOR ID: Perpetrator identifier
PSSF: Promoting Safe and Stable Families
REPORT ID: Report identifier
SACWIS: Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System
SDC: Summary data component
SSBG: Social Services Block Grant
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Child Maltreatment 2016 A ppendix B: Glossary 96

Definitions
ADOPTION AND FOSTER CARE ANALYSIS AND REPORTING SYSTEM (AFCARS): The federal collec-
tion of case-level information on all children in foster care for whom state child welfare agencies have
responsibility for placement, care, or supervision and on children who are adopted under the auspices
of the state’s public child welfare agency. AFCARS also includes information on foster and adoptive
parents.
ADOPTION SERVICES: Activities to assist with bringing about the adoption of a child.
ADOPTIVE PARENT: A person with the legal relation of parent to a child not related by birth, with
the same mutual rights and obligations that exist between children and their birth parents. The legal
relationship has been finalized.
AFCARS ID: The record number used in the AFCARS data submission or the value that would be
assigned.
AGE: A number representing the years that the child or perpetrator had been alive at the time of the
alleged maltreatment.
AGENCY FILE: A data file submitted by a state to NCANDS on an annual basis. The file contains
supplemental aggregated child abuse and neglect data from such agencies as medical examiners’
offices and non-CPS services providers.
ALCOHOL ABUSE: Compulsive use of alcohol that is not of a temporary nature. This term can be
applied to a caregiver or a child. If applied to a child, it can include Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and
exposure to alcohol during pregnancy.
ALLEGED PERPETRATOR: An individual who is named in a referral to have caused or knowingly

allowed the maltreatment of a child.
ALLEGED MALTREATMENT: Suspected child abuse and neglect. In NCANDS, such suspicions are
included in a referral to a CPS agency.
ALLEGED VICTIM: Child about whom a referral regarding maltreatment was made to a CPS agency.
ALLEGED VICTIM REPORT SOURCE: A child who alleges to have been a victim of child maltreatment
and who makes a report of the allegation.
ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE: The provision of a response other than an investigation that determines a
child or family is in need of services. A determination of maltreatment is not made and a perpetrator
is not determined. States may report the disposition as alternative response victim or alternative
response nonvictim, however, in this report the categories are combined.
AMERICAN INDIAN or ALASKA NATIVE: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of
North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or com-
munity attachment.

ANONYMOUS REPORT SOURCE: An individual who notifies a CPS agency of suspected child
maltreatment without identifying himself or herself.
ASIAN: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or
the Indian subcontinent, including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia,
Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
ASSESSMENT: A process by which the CPS agency determines whether the child or other persons
involved in the report of alleged maltreatment is in need of services. When used as an alternative
to an investigation, it is a process designed to gain a greater understanding about family strengths,
needs, and resources.
BEHAVIOR PROBLEM, CHILD: A child’s behavior in the school or community that adversely affects
socialization, learning, growth, and moral development. May include adjudicated or nonadjudicated
behavior problems such as running away from home or a placement.
BIOLOGICAL PARENT: The birth mother or father of the child.
BLACK or AFRICAN-AMERICAN: A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.
BOY: A male child younger than 18 years.
CAREGIVER: A person responsible for the care and supervision of a child.
CAREGIVER RISK FACTOR: A primary caregiver’s characteristic, disability, problem, or environment,

which would tend to decrease the ability to provide adequate care for the child.
CASE-LEVEL DATA: States submit case-level data by constructing an electronic file of child-specific
records for each report of alleged child abuse and neglect that received a CPS response. Only com-
pleted reports that resulted in a disposition (or finding) as an outcome of the CPS response during the
reporting year, are submitted in each state’s data file. The data submission containing these case-level
data is called the Child File.
CASELOAD: The number of CPS responses (cases) handled by workers.
CASE MANAGEMENT SERVICES: Activities for the arrangement, coordination, and monitoring of
services to meet the needs of children and their families.
CHILD: A person who has not attained the lesser of (a) the age of 18 or (b) except in the case of sexual
abuse, the age specified by the child protection law of the state in which the child resides.
CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT STATE GRANT: Funding to the states for programs serving abused and
neglected children, awarded under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA). May
be used to assist states with intake and assessment, screening and investigation of child abuse and
neglect reports, improving risk and safety assessment protocols, training child protective service
workers and mandated reporters, and improving services to disabled infants with life-threatening
conditions.

CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT ACT (CAPTA) (P.L. 100-294): The key federal legislation
addressing child abuse and neglect, which was originally enacted on January 31, 1974 (P.L. 93–247).
CAPTA has been reauthorized and amended several times, most recently on December 20, 2010, by
the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111–320). CAPTA provides federal funding to states in
support of prevention, assessment, investigation, prosecution, and treatment activities for child abuse
and neglect. It also provides grants to public agencies and nonprofit organizations, includ-ing Tribes,
for demonstration programs and projects; and the federal support for research, evaluation, technical
assistance, and data collection activities.
CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEWS: The 1994 Amendments to the Social Security Act (SSA)
authorized the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to review state child and
family service programs to ensure conformity with the requirements in titles IV–B and IV–E of the
SSA. Under a final rule, which became effective March 25, 2000, states are assessed for substantial
conformity with certain federal requirements for child protective, foster care, adoption, family
preservation and family support, and independent living services.
CHILD DAYCARE PROVIDER: A person with a temporary caregiver responsibility, but who is not
related to the child, such as a daycare center staff member, family provider, or babysitter. Does not
include persons with legal custody or guardianship of the child.
CHILD DISPOSITION: A determination made by a social service agency that evidence is or is not suf-
ficient under state law to conclude that maltreatment occurred. A disposition is applied to each child
within a report.
CHILD DEATH REVIEW TEAM: A state or local team of professionals who review all or a sample of
cases of children who are alleged to have died due to maltreatment or other causes.
CHILD FILE: A data file submitted by a state to NCANDS on the periodic basis. The file contains
child-specific records for each report of alleged child abuse and neglect that received a CPS response.
Only completed reports that resulted in a disposition (or finding) as an outcome of the CPS response
during the reporting year, are submitted in each state’s data file.
CHILD IDENTIFIER (Child ID): A unique identification assigned to each child. This identification is not
the state’s child identification but is an encrypted identification assigned by the state for the purposes
of the NCANDS data collection.
CHILD MALTREATMENT: The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) definition of child
abuse and neglect is, at a minimum: Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker
which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or an act or
failure to act, which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES AGENCY (CPS): An official agency of a state having the responsibility
to receive and respond to allegations of suspected child abuse and neglect, determine the validity of
the allegations, and provide services to protect and serve children and their families.
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES (CPS) RESPONSE: CPS agencies conduct a response for all reports
of child maltreatment. The response may be an investigation, which determines whether a child was
maltreated or is at-risk of maltreatment and establishes if an intervention is needed. The majority

of reports receive investigations. A small, but growing, number of reports receive an alternative
response, which focuses primarily upon the needs of the family and usually does not include a
determination regarding the alleged maltreatment(s).
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES (CPS) SUPERVISOR: The manager of the caseworker assigned to a
report of child maltreatment at the time of the report disposition.
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES (CPS) WORKER: The person assigned to a report of child maltreatment
at the time of the report disposition.
CHILD RECORD: A case-level record in the Child File containing the data associated with one child.
CHILD RISK FACTOR: A child’s characteristic, disability, problem, or environment that may affect the
child’s safety.
CHILD VICTIM: A child for whom the state determined at least one maltreatment was substantiated or
indicated. This includes a child who died of child abuse and neglect. This is a change from prior years
when children with dispositions of alternative response victim were included as victims. It is impor-
tant to note that a child may be a victim in one report and a nonvictim in another report.
CHILDREN’S BUREAU: The Children’s Bureau partners with federal, state, tribal, and local agencies
to improve the overall health and well-being of our nation’s children and families. It is the federal
agency responsible for the collection and analysis of NCANDS data.
CLOSED WITH NO FINDING: A disposition that does not conclude with a specific finding because the
CPS response could not be completed.
COMMUNITY-BASED CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION PROGRAM (CBCAP): This program provides

funding to states to develop, operate, expand, and enhance community-based, prevention-focused
programs and activities designed to strengthen and support families to prevent child abuse and
neglect. The program was reauthorized, amended, and renamed as part of the CAPTA amendments
in 2010. To receive these funds, the Governor must designate a lead agency to receive the funds and
implement the program.
COUNSELING SERVICES: Activities that apply the therapeutic processes to personal, family, situ-
ational, or occupational problems to bring about a positive resolution of the problem or improved
individual or family functioning or circumstances.
COUNTY OF REPORT: The jurisdiction to which the report of alleged child maltreatment was assigned
for a CPS response.
COUNTY OF RESIDENCE: The jurisdiction in which the child was residing at the time of the report of
maltreatment.
COURT APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVE: A person appointed by the court to represent a child in an

abuse and neglect proceeding and is often referred to as a guardian ad litem (GAL). The representa-
tive makes recommendations to the court concerning the best interests of the child.

COURT-APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATE (CASA): Adult volunteers trained to advocate for abused and
neglected children who are involved in the juvenile court.
COURT ACTION: Legal action initiated by a representative of the CPS agency on behalf of the child.
This includes authorization to place the child in foster care, filing for temporary custody, dependency,
or termination of parental rights. It does not include criminal proceedings against a perpetrator.
CHILD DAYCARE SERVICES: Activities provided to a child or children in a setting that meets appli-
cable standards of state and local law, in a center or home, for a portion of a 24-hour day.
DISABILITY: A child is considered to have a disability if one of more of the following risk factors
has been identified: child has a/an intellectual disability, emotional disturbance, visual or hearing
impairment, learning disability, physical disability, behavior problem, or some other medical condi-
tion. In general, children with such conditions are undercounted as not every child receives a clinical
diagnostic assessment.
DISPOSITION: A determination made by a social service agency that evidence is or is not sufficient
under state law to conclude that maltreatment occurred. A disposition is applied to each alleged
maltreatment in a report and to the report itself.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, CAREGIVER RISK FACTOR: Any abusive, violent, coercive, forceful, or
threatening act or word inflicted by one member of a family or household on another. In NCANDS,
the caregiver may be the perpetrator or the victim of the domestic violence.
DRUG ABUSE: The compulsive use of drugs that is not of a temporary nature. This term can be
applied to a caregiver or a child. If applied to a child, it can include infants exposed to drugs during
pregnancy.
DUPLICATE COUNT OF CHILDREN: Counting a child each time he or she was the subject of a report.
This count also is called a report-child pair.
DUPLICATED COUNT OF PERPETRATORS: Counting a perpetrator each time the perpetrator is associ-
ated with maltreating a child. This also is known as a report-child-perpetrator triad. For example,
a perpetrator would be counted twice in all the following situations: (1) one child in two separate
reports, (2) two children in a single report, and (3) two children in two separate reports.
EDUCATION AND TRAINING SERVICES: Services provided to improve knowledge or capacity of a

given skill set, in a particular subject matter, or in personal or human development. Services may
include instruction or training in, but are not limited to, such issues as consumer education, health
education, community protection and safety education, literacy education, English as a second lan-
guage, and General Educational Development (G.E.D.). Component services or activities may include
screening, assessment, and testing; individual or group instruction; tutoring; provision of books,
supplies and instructional material; counseling; transportation; and referral to community resources.
EDUCATION PERSONNEL: Employees of a public or private educational institution or program;

includes teachers, teacher assistants, administrators, and others directly associated with the delivery
of educational services.

EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE: A clinically diagnosed condition exhibiting one or more of the fol-
lowing characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree: an inability to build or
maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships; inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under
normal circumstances; a general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression; or a tendency to
develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal problems. The diagnosis is based on the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. This term includes schizophrenia and autism
and can be applied to a child or a caregiver.
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES: Activities provided to assist individuals in securing employment or the

acquiring of skills that promote opportunities for employment.
FAMILY: A group of two or more persons related by birth, marriage, adoption, or emotional ties.
FAMILY PRESERVATION SERVICES: Activities designed to help families alleviate crises that might
lead to out-of-home placement of children, maintain the safety of children in their own homes,
support families to reunify or adopt, and assist families to obtain services and other supports in a
culturally sensitive manner.
FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES: Community-based services that assist and support parents in their
role as caregivers. These services are designed to improve parental competency and healthy child
development by helping parents enhance their strengths and resolve problems that may lead to child
maltreatment, developmental delays, and family disruption.
FATALITY: Death of a child as a result of abuse and neglect, because either an injury resulting from
the abuse and neglect was the cause of death, or abuse and neglect were contributing factors to the
cause of death.
FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR (FFY): The 12-month period from October 1 through September 30 used by
the federal government. The fiscal year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends.
FEDERAL INFORMATION PROCESSING STANDARDS (FIPS): The federally defined set of county codes
for all states.
FINDING: See DISPOSITION.
FETAL ALCOHOL SPECTRUM DISORDERS: Scientists define a broad range of effects and
symptoms caused by prenatal alcohol exposure under the umbrella term Fetal Alcohol
Spectrum Disorders (FASD). The medical disorders collectively labeled FASD include the
Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (IOM) diagnostic categories of Fetal Alcohol
Syndrome, Partial Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Alcohol-Related Neurodevelopmental Disorder,
and Alcohol-Related Birth Defects. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM–5) also includes Neurobehavioral Disorder Associated with Prenatal Alcohol Exposure.
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/fetal-alcohol-exposure
FINANCIAL PROBLEM: A risk factor related to the family’s inability to provide sufficient financial
resources to meet minimum needs.

FOSTER CARE: Twenty-four-hour substitute care for children placed away from their parents or
guardians and for whom the state agency has placement and care responsibility. This includes family
foster homes, group homes, emergency shelters, residential facilities, childcare institutions, etc. The
NCANDS category applies regardless of whether the facility is licensed and whether payments are
made by the state or local agency for the care of the child, or whether there is federal matching of any
payments made. Foster care may be provided by those related or not related to the child. All children
in care for more than 24 hours are counted.
FOSTER PARENT: Individual who provides a home for orphaned, abused, neglected, delinquent, or
disabled children under the placement, care, or supervision of the state. The person may be a relative
or nonrelative and need not be licensed by the state agency to be considered a foster parent.
FRIEND: A nonrelative acquainted with the child, the parent, or caregiver.
FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT: A computed statistic representing the number of full-time employees if the
number of hours worked by part-time employees had been worked by full-time employees.
GIRL: A female child younger than 18 years.
GROUP HOME OR RESIDENTIAL CARE: A nonfamilial 24-hour care facility that may be supervised by
the state agency or governed privately.
GROUP HOME STAFF: Employee of a nonfamilial 24-hour care facility.
GUARDIAN AD LITEM: See COURT-APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVE.
HEALTH-RELATED AND HOME HEALTH SERVICES: Activities provided to attain and maintain a
favorable condition of health.
HISPANIC ETHNICITY: A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or
other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. See RACE.
HOME-BASED SERVICES: In-home activities provided to individuals or families to assist with

household or personal care that improve or maintain family well-being. Includes homemaker, chore,
home maintenance, and household management services.
HOUSING SERVICES: Activities designed to assist individuals or families to locate, obtain, or retain
suitable housing.
IDEA: See Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act.
INADEQUATE HOUSING: A risk factor related to substandard, overcrowded, or unsafe housing condi-
tions, including homelessness.
INCIDENT DATE: The month, day, and year of the most recent, known incident of alleged child
maltreatment.
INDEPENDENT AND TRANSITIONAL LIVING SERVICES: Activities designed to help older youth in
foster care or homeless youth make the transition to independent living.
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT: A law ensuring services to
children with disabilities throughout the nation.
INFORMATION AND REFERRAL SERVICES: Resources or activities that provide facts about services
that are available from public and private providers. The facts are provided after an assessment (not a
clinical diagnosis or evaluation) of client needs.
INDICATED OR REASON TO SUSPECT: A disposition that concludes that maltreatment could not be
substantiated under state law or policy, but there was a reason to suspect that at least one child may
have been maltreated or was at-risk of maltreatment. This is applicable only to states that distinguish
between substantiated and indicated dispositions.
IN-HOME SERVICES: Any service provided to the family while the child remains in the home.
Services may be provided directly in the child’s home or a professional setting.
INTAKE: The activities associated with the receipt of a referral and the decision of whether to accept it
for a CPS response.
INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY: A clinically diagnosed condition of reduced general cognitive and motor
functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior that adversely affect socialization
and learning. This term can be applied to a caregiver or a child.
INTENTIONALLY FALSE: The unsubstantiated disposition that indicates a conclusion that the person
who made the allegation of maltreatment knew that the allegation was not true.
INVESTIGATION: A type of CPS response that involves the gathering of objective information to
determine whether a child was maltreated or is at-risk of maltreatment and establishes if an inter-
vention is needed. Generally, includes face-to-face contact with the alleged victim and results in a
disposition as to whether the alleged maltreatment occurred.
INVESTIGATION START DATE: The date when CPS initially had face-to-face contact with the alleged
victim. If this face-to-face contact is not possible, the date would be when CPS initially contacted any
party who could provide information essential to the investigation or assessment.
INVESTIGATION WORKER: A CPS agency person who performs either an investigation response or
alternative response to determine whether the alleged victim(s) in the screened-in referral (report) was
maltreated or is at-risk of maltreatment.
JUVENILE COURT PETITION: A legal document requesting that the court take action regarding the
child’s status as a result of the CPS response; usually a petition requesting the child be declared a
dependent and placed in an out-of-home setting.
LEARNING DISABILITY: A clinically diagnosed disorder in basic psychological processes involved

with understanding or using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect
ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell or use mathematical calculations. The term includes
conditions such as perceptual disability, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and
developmental aphasia. This term can be applied to a caregiver or a child.

LEGAL GUARDIAN: Adult person who has been given legal custody and guardianship of a minor.
LEGAL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL: People employed by a local, state, tribal, or federal
justice agency. This includes police, courts, district attorney’s office, probation or other community
corrections agency, and correctional facilities.
LEGAL SERVICES: Activities provided by a lawyer, or other person(s) under the supervision of a law-
yer, to assist individuals in seeking or obtaining legal help in civil matters such as housing, divorce,
child support, guardianship, paternity, and legal separation.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: The type of proof required by state statute to make a specific finding or
disposition regarding an allegation of child abuse and neglect.
LIVING ARRANGEMENT: The environment in which a child was residing at the time of the alleged
incident of maltreatment.
MALTREATMENT TYPE: A particular form of child maltreatment that received a CPS response.
Types include medical neglect, neglect or deprivation of necessities, physical abuse, psychological
or emotional maltreatment, sexual abuse, and other forms included in state law. NCANDS conducts
analyses on maltreatments that received a disposition of substantiated or indicated.
MATERNAL, INFANT, AND EARLY CHILDHOOD HOME VISITING PROGRAM: The Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act of 2010 (P.L. 111–148) authorized the creation of the Maternal, Infant, and Early
Childhood Home Visiting program (MIECHV). The program facilitates collaboration and partnership
at the federal, state, and community levels to improve health and development outcomes for at-risk
children through evidence-based home visiting programs.
MEDICAL NEGLECT: A type of maltreatment caused by failure of the caregiver to provide for the
appropriate health care of the child although financially able to do so, or offered financial or other
resources to do so.
MEDICAL PERSONNEL: People employed by a medical facility or practice. This includes physicians,
physician assistants, nurses, emergency medical technicians, dentists, chiropractors, coroners, and
dental assistants and technicians.
MENTAL HEALTH PERSONNEL: People employed by a mental health facility or practice, including
psychologists, psychiatrists, and therapists.
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES: Activities that aim to overcome issues involving emotional disturbance
or maladaptive behavior adversely affecting socialization, learning, or development. Usually provided
by public or private mental health agencies and includes both residential and nonresidential activities.
MILITARY FAMILY MEMBER: A legal dependent of a person on active duty in the Armed Services of
the United States such as the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard.
MILITARY MEMBER: A person on active duty in the Armed Services of the United States such as the
Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard.

NATIONAL CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DATA SYSTEM (NCANDS): A national data collection system
of child abuse and neglect data from CPS agencies. Contains case-level and aggregate data.
NATIONAL YOUTH IN TRANSITION DATABASE (NYTD): Public Law 106–169 established the John H.
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP), which provides states with flexible funding to
assist youth with transitioning from foster care to self-sufficiency. The law required a data collection
system to track the independent living services states provide to youth and outcome measures to
assess states’ performance in operating their independent living programs. The National Youth in
Transition Database (NYTD) requires states engage in two data collection activities: (1) to collect
information on each youth who receives independent living services paid for or provided by the state
agency that administers the CFCIP; and (2) to collect demographic and outcome information on cer-
tain youth in foster care whom the state will follow over time to collect additional outcome informa-
tion. States begin collecting data for NYTD on October 1, 2010 and report data to ACF semiannually.
NEGLECT OR DEPRIVATION OF NECESSITIES: A type of maltreatment that refers to the failure by

the caregiver to provide needed, age-appropriate care although financially able to do so or offered
financial or other means to do so.
NEIGHBOR: A person living in close geographical proximity to the child or family.
NO ALLEGED MALTREATMENT: A child who received a CPS response, but was not the subject of an
allegation or any finding of maltreatment. Some states have laws requiring all children in a household
receive a CPS response, if any child in the household is the subject of a CPS response.
NONCAREGIVER: A person who is not responsible for the care and supervision of the child, including
school personnel, friends, and neighbors.
NONPARENT: A person in a caregiver role other than an adoptive parent, biological parent, or
stepparent.
NONVICTIM: A child with a maltreatment disposition of alternative response nonvictim, alterna-

tive response victim, unsubstantiated, closed with no finding, no alleged maltreatment, other, and
unknown.
NONPROFESSIONAL REPORT SOURCE: Persons who did not have a relationship with the child based
on their occupation, such as friends, relatives, and neighbors. State laws vary as to whether nonprofes-
sionals are required to report suspected abuse and neglect.
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET (OMB): The office assists the President of the United States
with overseeing the preparation of the federal budget and supervising its administration in Executive
Branch agencies. It evaluates the effectiveness of agency programs, policies, and procedures, assesses
competing funding demands among agencies, and sets funding priorities.
OTHER: The state coding for this field is not one of the codes in the NCANDS record layout.
OTHER RELATIVE: A nonparental family member.

OTHER MEDICAL CONDITION: A type of disability other than one of those defined in NCANDS
(behavior problem, emotional disturbance, learning disability, intellectual disability, physically
disabled, and visually or hearing impaired). The not otherwise classified disability must affect
functioning or development or require special medical care (e.g., chronic illnesses). This term may be
applied to a caregiver or a child.
OUT-OF-COURT CONTACT: A meeting, which is not part of the actual judicial hearing, between
the court-appointed representative and the child victim. Such contacts enable the court-appointed
representative to obtain a first-hand understanding of the situation and needs of the child victim and
to make recommendations to the court concerning the best interests of the child.
PACIFIC ISLANDER: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa,
or other Pacific Islands.
PARENT: The birth mother or father, adoptive mother or father, or stepmother or stepfather of the
child victim.
PART C: A section in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA)
for infants and toddlers younger than 3 years with disabilities.
PERPETRATOR: The person who has been determined to have caused or knowingly allowed the
maltreatment of a child.
PERPETRATOR AGE: Age of an individual determined to have caused or knowingly allowed the
maltreatment of a child. Age is calculated in years at the time of the report of child maltreatment.
PERPETRATOR AS CAREGIVER: Circumstances whereby the person who caused or knowingly

allowed child maltreatment to occur was also responsible for care and supervision of the victim when
the maltreatment occurred.
PERPETRATOR IDENTIFIER (Perpetrator ID): A unique, encrypted identification assigned to each

perpetrator by the state for the purposes of the NCANDS data collection.
PERPETRATOR RELATIONSHIP: Primary role of the perpetrator to a child victim.
PETITION DATE: The month, day, and year that a juvenile court petition was filed.
PHYSICAL ABUSE: Type of maltreatment that refers to physical acts that caused or could have caused
physical injury to a child.
PHYSICAL DISABILITY: A clinically diagnosed physical condition that adversely affects day-to-day
motor functioning, such as cerebral palsy, spina bifida, multiple sclerosis, orthopedic impairments,
and other physical disabilities. This term can be applied to a caregiver or a child.
POSTRESPONSE SERVICES (also known as Postinvestigation Services): Activities provided or

arranged by the child protective services agency, social services agency, or the child welfare agency
for the child or family as a result of needs discovered during an investigation. Includes such services
as family preservation, family support, and foster care. Postresponse services are delivered within the
first 90 days after the disposition of the report.
PREVENTION SERVICES: Activities aimed at preventing child abuse and neglect. Such activities
may be directed at specific populations identified as being at increased risk of becoming abusive and
maybe designed to increase the strength and stability of families, to increase parents’ confidence and
competence in their parenting abilities, and to afford children a stable and supportive environment.
They include child abuse and neglect preventive services provided through federal, state, and local
funds. These prevention activities do not include public awareness campaigns.
PRIOR CHILD VICTIM: A child victim with previous substantiated or indicated reports of maltreatment.
PRIOR PERPETRATOR: A perpetrator with a previous determination in the state’s information system
that he or she had caused or knowingly allowed child maltreatment to occur. “Previous” is defined as
a determination that took place prior to the disposition date of the report being included in the dataset.
PROFESSIONAL REPORT SOURCE: Persons who encountered the child as part of their occupation,
such as child daycare providers, educators, legal law enforcement personnel, and medical personnel.
State laws require most professionals to notify CPS agencies of suspected maltreatment.
PROMOTING SAFE AND STABLE FAMILIES PROGRAM: Program that provides grants to the states
under Section 430, title IV–B, subpart 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended, to develop and
expand four types of services—community-based family support services; innovative child welfare
services, including family preservation services; time-limited reunification services; and adoption
promotion and support services.
PSYCHOLOGICAL OR EMOTIONAL MALTREATMENT: Acts or omissions—other than physical abuse or

sexual abuse—that caused or could have caused—conduct, cognitive, affective, or other behavioral or
mental disorders. Frequently occurs as verbal abuse or excessive demands on a child’s performance.
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE: A risk factor related the family’s participation in social services programs,
including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; General Assistance; Medicaid; Social Security
Income; Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); etc.
RACE: The primary taxonomic category of which the individual identifies himself or herself as a
member, or of which the parent identifies the child as a member. See AMERICAN INDIAN OR
ALASKA NATIVE, ASIAN, BLACK OR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, PACIFIC ISLANDER, WHITE,
and UNKNOWN. Also, see HISPANIC.
RECEIPT OF REPORT: The log-in of a referral to the agency alleging child maltreatment.
REFERRAL: Notification to the CPS agency of suspected child maltreatment. This can include more
than one child.
RELATIVE: A person connected to the child by adoption, blood, or marriage.
REMOVAL DATE: The month, day, and year that the child was removed from his or her normal place of
residence to a substitute care setting by a CPS agency during or as a result of the CPS response. If a
child has been removed more than once, the removal date is the first removal resulting from the CPS
response.

REMOVED FROM HOME: The CPS removal of the child from his or her normal place of residence to a
foster care setting.
REPORT: A screened-in referral alleging child maltreatment. A report receives a CPS response in the
form of an investigation response or an alternative response.
REPORT-CHILD PAIR: Refers to the concatenation of the Report ID and the Child ID, which together
form a new unique ID that represents a single unique record in the case-level Child File.
REPORT DATE: The day, month, and year that the responsible agency was notified of the suspected
child maltreatment.
REPORT DISPOSITION: The point in time at the end of the investigation or assessment when a CPS
worker makes a final determination (disposition) about whether the alleged maltreatment occurred.
REPORT DISPOSITION DATE: The day, month, and year that the report disposition was made.
REPORT IDENTIFIER (Report ID): A unique identification assigned to each report of child maltreat-
ment for the purposes of the NCANDS data collection.
REPORT SOURCE: The category or role of the person who notifies a CPS agency of alleged child
maltreatment.
REPORTING PERIOD: The 12-month period for which data are submitted to the NCANDS.
RESIDENTIAL FACILITY STAFF: Employees of a public or private group residential facility, including
emergency shelters, group homes, and institutions.
RESPONSE TIME FROM REFERRAL TO INVESTIGATION OR ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE: The response

time is defined as the time between the receipt of a call to the state or local agency alleging maltreat-
ment and face-to-face contact with the alleged victim, wherever this is appropriate, or with another
person who can provide information on the allegation(s).
RESPONSE TIME FROM REFERRAL TO THE PROVISION OF SERVICES: The time from the receipt of
a referral to the state or local agency alleging child maltreatment to the provision of post response
services, often requiring the opening of a case for ongoing services.
RISK FACTOR: See CAREGIVER RISK FACTOR and CHILD RISK FACTOR.
SACWIS:See STATEWIDE AUTOMATED CHILD WELFARE INFORMATION SYSTEM

(SACWIS).
SCREENED-IN REFERRAL: An allegation of child maltreatment that met the state’s standards for
acceptance and became a report.
SCREENED-OUT REFERRAL: An allegation of child maltreatment that did not meet the state’s
standards for acceptance as a report.

SCREENING: Agency hotline or intake units conduct the screening process to determine whether a
referral is appropriate for further action. Referrals that do not meet agency criteria are screened out or
diverted from CPS to other community agencies. In most states, a referral may include more than one
child.
SERVICE DATE: The date activities began as a result of needs discovered during the CPS response.
SERVICES: See POSTRESPONSE SERVICES and PREVENTION SERVICES.
SEXUAL ABUSE: A type of maltreatment that refers to the involvement of the child in sexual activity
to provide sexual gratification or financial benefit to the perpetrator, including contacts for sexual
purposes, molestation, statutory rape, prostitution, pornography, exposure, incest, or other sexually
exploitative activities.
SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT (SSBG): Funds provided by title XX of the Social Security Act that
are used for services to the states that may include child protection, child and foster care services, and
daycare.
SOCIAL SERVICES PERSONNEL: Employees of a public or private social services or social welfare
agency, or other social worker or counselor who provides similar services.
STATE: In NCANDS, the primary unit from which child maltreatment data are collected. This
includes all 50 states, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.
STATE ADVISORY GROUP: NCANDS state contact persons, comprised of state CPS program admin-
istrators and information systems managers, who assist with the identification and resolution of issues
related to CPS data. The group suggests strategies for improving the quality of data submitted by
states to NCANDS and reviews proposed NCANDS modifications.
STATE CONTACT PERSON: The state person with the responsibility to provide information to the
NCANDS.
STATEWIDE AUTOMATED CHILD WELFARE INFORMATION SYSTEM (SACWIS): Any of a variety of

automated systems designed to process child welfare information.
STEPPARENT: The husband or wife, by a subsequent marriage, of the child’s mother or father.
SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES: Activities designed to deter, reduce, or eliminate substance abuse or
chemical dependency.
SUBSTANTIATED: An investigation disposition that concludes that the allegation of maltreatment or

risk of maltreatment was supported or founded by state law or policy.
SUMMARY DATA COMPONENT (SDC): The aggregate data collection form submitted by states that do
not submit the Child File. This form was discontinued for the FFY 2012 data collection.

TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES (TANF): A block grant that is administered by state,
territorial, and tribal agencies. Citizens can apply for TANF at the respective agency administering
the program in their community.
UNIQUE COUNT OF CHILDREN: Counting a child once, regardless of the number of reports concern-
ing that child, who received a CPS response in the FFY.
UNIQUE COUNT OF PERPETRATORS: Counting a perpetrator once, regardless of the number of

children the perpetrator is associated with maltreating or the number of records associated with a
perpetrator.
UNKNOWN: The state may collect data on this variable, but the data for this particular report or child
were not captured or are missing.
UNMARRIED PARTNER OF PARENT: Someone who has an intimate relationship with the parent and
lives in the household with the parent of the maltreated child.
UNSUBSTANTIATED: An investigation disposition that determines that there was not sufficient
evidence under state law to conclude or suspect that the child was maltreated or at-risk of being
maltreated.
VISUAL OR HEARING IMPAIRMENT: A clinically diagnosed condition related to a visual impairment or

permanent or fluctuating hearing or speech impairment that may affect functioning or development.
This term can be applied to a caregiver or a child.
VICTIM: A child for whom the state determined at least one maltreatment was substantiated or indi-
cated; and a disposition of substantiated or indicated was assigned for a child in a specific report. This
includes a child who died and the death was confirmed to be the result of child abuse and neglect. A
child may be a victim in one report and a nonvictim in another report.
WHITE: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North
Africa.
WORKER IDENTIFIER: A unique identification of the worker who is assigned to the child at the time of
the report disposition.
WORKFORCE: Total number of workers in a CPS agency.

State Characteristics
APPENDIX C
Administrative Structure
States vary in how they administer and deliver child welfare services. Forty states (including the
District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) have a centralized system classified
as state administered. Ten states are classified as state supervised, county administered; and two
states are classified as “hybrid” meaning they are partially administered by the state and partially
administered by counties. Each state’s administrative structure (as submitted by the state as part of
commentary in appendix d) is provided in table C–1.
Level of Evidence
States use a certain level of evidence to determine whether maltreatment occurred or the child is
at-risk of maltreatment. Level of evidence is defined as the proof required to make a specific finding
or disposition regarding an allegation of child abuse and neglect. Each state’s level of evidence (as
submitted by each state as part of commentary in appendix D) is provided in table C–1.
Data Submissions
States submit case-level data by constructing an electronic file of child-specific records for each report
of alleged child abuse and neglect that received a CPS response. Each state’s submission includes only
completed reports that resulted in a disposition (or finding) as an outcome of the CPS response during
the reporting year. The data submission containing these case-level data is called the Child File.
The Child File is supplemented by agency-level aggregate statistics in a separate data submission called
the Agency File. The Agency File contains data that are not reportable at the child-specific level and
often gathered from agencies external to CPS. States are asked to submit both the Child File and the
Agency File each year. For FFY 2016, 51 states submitted both a Child File and an Agency File.
Once validated, the Child Files and Agency Files are loaded into a multiyear, multistate data warehouse,
the NCANDS DW. The FFY 2016 flat file dataset is available to researchers from the National Data
Archive on Child Abuse and neglect (NDACAN).
Child Maltreatment 2016 A ppendix C: State Characteristics 112

Child Population Data
The child population data for years 2012–2016 are displayed by state in table C–2. The 2016 child
population data for the demographics of age, sex, and race and ethnicity are displayed by state in table
C–3. The adult population is displayed in table C–4.

Table C–1 Data Files Submitted, State Administrative
Structure, and Level of Evidence, 2016
State
Supervised,
State County Probable Agency File and
State Hybrid Administered Administered Credible Preponderance Cause Reasonable Child File
Alabama - n - - n - - n
Alaska - n - - n - - n
Arizona - n - - - n - n
Arkansas - n - - n - - n
California - - n - n - - n
Colorado - - n - n - - n
Connecticut - n - - n - - n
Delaware - n - - n - - n
District of Columbia - n - n - - - n
Florida - n - - n - - n
Georgia - n - - n - - n
Hawaii - n - - - - n n
Idaho - n - - n - - n
Illinois - n - n - - - n
Indiana - n - - n - - n
Iowa - n - - n - - n
Kansas - n - - n - - n
Kentucky - n - - n - - n
Louisiana - n - - - - n n
Maine - n - - n - - n
Maryland - n - - n - - n
Massachusetts - n - - - - n n
Michigan - n - - n - - n
Minnesota - - n - n - - n
Mississippi - n - n - - - n
Missouri - n - - n - - n
Montana - n - - n - - n
Nebraska - n - - n - - n
Nevada n - - n - - - n
New Hampshire - n - - n - - n
New Jersey - n - - n - - n
New Mexico - n - n - - - n
New York - - n n - - - n
North Carolina - - n - n - - n
North Dakota - - n - n - - n
Ohio - - n n - - - n
Oklahoma - n - n - - - n
Oregon - n - - - - n n
Pennsylvania - - n - n - - n
Puerto Rico - n - - n - - -
Rhode Island - n - - n - - n
South Carolina - n - - n - - n
South Dakota - n - - n - - n
Tennessee - n - - n - - n
Texas - n - - n - - n
Utah - n - - - - n n
Vermont - n - - - - n n
Virginia - - n - n - - n
Washington - n - - n - - n
West Virginia - n - - n - - n
Wisconsin n - - - n - - n
Wyoming - - n - n - - n
Reporting States 2 40 10 8 37 1 6 51
Note: Level of evidence is listed in alphabetical order.

Table C–2 Child Population, 2012–2016
State 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Alabama 1,115,829 1,108,102 1,104,700 1,101,434 1,096,823
Alaska 188,446 188,118 186,980 186,413 187,327
Arizona 1,613,716 1,613,675 1,618,147 1,622,436 1,631,492
Arkansas 710,901 709,394 707,515 706,287 705,053
California 9,199,913 9,160,753 9,135,654 9,114,904 9,092,863
Colorado 1,233,921 1,238,411 1,245,647 1,255,032 1,261,372
Connecticut 794,966 784,050 773,848 762,837 753,294
Delaware 204,524 203,641 203,786 204,305 204,274
District of Columbia 107,735 111,745 115,069 118,260 120,893
Florida 4,009,471 4,023,512 4,054,764 4,100,495 4,146,712
Georgia 2,485,880 2,484,051 2,491,027 2,501,646 2,511,544
Hawaii 306,744 308,496 308,618 309,144 308,016
Idaho 427,710 428,348 430,596 432,740 437,173
Illinois 3,057,749 3,022,504 2,990,001 2,958,505 2,926,109
Indiana 1,589,479 1,585,690 1,582,085 1,578,774 1,575,452
Iowa 724,587 725,740 727,852 729,208 730,731
Kansas 726,430 724,014 721,463 719,120 714,951
Kentucky 1,018,185 1,016,227 1,014,113 1,011,692 1,010,629
Louisiana 1,114,689 1,113,574 1,115,012 1,115,779 1,113,949
Maine 265,384 262,140 259,416 256,665 254,714
Maryland 1,348,037 1,345,834 1,349,237 1,348,358 1,348,728
Massachusetts 1,402,459 1,396,786 1,390,829 1,384,851 1,378,102
Michigan 2,270,340 2,246,249 2,227,027 2,206,584 2,191,057
Minnesota 1,277,708 1,279,048 1,282,076 1,283,515 1,288,333
Mississippi 742,064 736,091 731,659 726,582 721,288
Missouri 1,405,119 1,398,316 1,394,278 1,390,333 1,386,863
Montana 222,892 223,993 225,152 226,270 227,611
Nebraska 462,968 465,058 467,656 470,781 473,325
Nevada 656,969 657,831 661,936 669,105 677,427
New Hampshire 275,550 270,897 266,872 263,461 260,588
New Jersey 2,035,165 2,021,113 2,011,539 1,997,348 1,984,752
New Mexico 512,070 507,036 501,482 496,107 490,663
New York 4,272,945 4,249,372 4,225,048 4,206,127 4,180,559
North Carolina 2,282,231 2,283,022 2,286,712 2,291,278 2,298,720
North Dakota 157,276 163,429 168,815 174,411 176,311
Ohio 2,668,994 2,652,685 2,640,987 2,627,298 2,612,172
Oklahoma 939,911 948,193 953,723 960,311 961,628
Oregon 860,085 857,254 858,992 862,586 868,727
Pennsylvania 2,740,436 2,717,946 2,703,150 2,689,712 2,674,805
Puerto Rico 835,456 804,307 768,944 732,415 695,872
Rhode Island 217,004 214,271 212,201 210,232 208,381
South Carolina 1,076,953 1,078,087 1,083,598 1,091,418 1,097,621
South Dakota 205,471 208,169 210,078 211,462 213,287
Tennessee 1,491,695 1,491,503 1,494,404 1,497,808 1,501,795
Texas 6,983,737 7,045,122 7,128,529 7,219,986 7,294,587
Utah 889,004 898,045 904,090 911,516 921,773
Vermont 124,864 123,202 121,786 120,116 118,528
Virginia 1,863,124 1,866,450 1,867,669 1,869,064 1,870,123
Washington 1,587,984 1,593,463 1,600,083 1,611,782 1,629,498
West Virginia 384,446 382,536 380,781 378,525 375,068
Wisconsin 1,317,070 1,308,546 1,302,021 1,294,611 1,287,693
Wyoming 136,525 137,692 138,451 139,545 138,901
National 74,542,811 74,383,731 74,346,098 74,349,174 74,338,157
Note: Puerto Rico did not submit FFY 2016 NCANDS data in time for Child Maltreatment 2016; however, the state’s population data are presented in this table.
Puerto Rico’s population data were not included in any rate calculations in this report.

Table C–3 Child Population Demographics, 2016 (continues)
State <1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Alabama 58,269 58,884 58,980 57,778 58,654 59,413 59,729 60,127 62,104
Alaska 10,938 10,798 11,061 11,166 10,152 11,330 10,482 10,393 10,606
Arizona 87,702 88,450 87,328 87,798 88,041 87,129 87,993 90,192 93,651
Arkansas 37,737 38,010 38,064 37,943 38,523 38,723 38,399 38,817 40,026
California 498,832 499,652 495,608 498,302 494,978 509,354 498,601 497,148 516,395
Colorado 67,691 67,507 67,410 67,295 67,561 69,064 70,073 69,875 71,867
Connecticut 36,202 36,719 37,179 36,994 38,227 38,814 39,505 39,750 41,521
Delaware 10,817 10,896 10,995 10,969 11,157 11,451 11,381 11,094 11,404
District of Columbia 9,399 8,779 8,542 8,710 8,077 8,450 7,500 6,409 6,545
Florida 224,910 226,356 226,673 222,646 225,551 226,962 222,107 223,963 233,919
Georgia 130,675 132,835 131,714 130,893 134,722 135,952 137,315 138,418 143,667
Hawaii 18,376 17,752 18,545 18,705 18,157 18,352 17,201 17,215 17,445
Idaho 22,986 23,226 22,804 23,244 23,029 23,292 24,094 24,595 25,270
Illinois 153,482 155,042 154,540 153,769 155,678 157,443 159,802 158,795 164,185
Indiana 83,679 84,138 84,727 84,874 84,569 84,774 85,457 86,114 88,498
Iowa 39,600 40,059 40,325 39,829 39,602 39,105 40,634 40,507 41,672
Kansas 38,202 38,572 38,777 39,593 39,163 39,941 40,018 39,856 41,080
Kentucky 54,810 55,483 55,040 55,715 54,705 54,825 55,266 54,808 57,098
Louisiana 62,380 62,678 63,171 61,158 61,214 61,468 60,664 61,611 63,614
Maine 12,751 12,864 12,886 13,237 13,330 13,025 13,745 13,744 14,192
Maryland 72,580 73,906 73,570 73,160 73,879 75,613 74,471 74,042 75,976
Massachusetts 71,857 71,824 71,992 72,672 73,031 73,955 74,083 73,212 75,706
Michigan 113,865 114,571 116,041 114,966 114,980 115,761 116,877 116,708 120,385
Minnesota 69,937 70,370 71,135 71,182 69,880 70,596 71,285 70,826 73,133
Mississippi 37,310 37,659 37,969 37,578 38,185 38,583 39,113 40,255 42,656
Missouri 74,205 74,559 75,705 74,640 74,849 75,282 75,964 76,056 78,605
Montana 12,644 12,683 12,603 12,650 12,449 12,311 12,539 12,806 12,957
Nebraska 26,640 26,824 26,728 26,284 26,333 26,005 26,597 26,512 26,921
Nevada 36,972 37,097 36,932 36,679 36,782 37,079 37,491 37,756 39,415
New Hampshire 12,479 12,624 12,914 13,127 13,056 13,658 13,534 13,771 14,281
New Jersey 102,267 103,306 104,711 104,938 106,110 108,710 107,920 106,565 110,250
New Mexico 25,075 25,482 25,957 26,178 26,258 27,218 27,308 27,273 28,608
New York 233,692 232,647 229,937 232,293 231,488 235,003 229,543 222,723 228,433
North Carolina 120,842 121,976 121,168 121,420 120,904 123,328 125,504 127,739 131,432
North Dakota 11,505 11,432 11,246 10,525 10,528 10,112 9,923 9,939 9,912
Ohio 137,896 138,919 140,841 141,018 139,249 138,840 140,007 141,576 145,293
Oklahoma 52,409 53,454 53,251 54,172 53,624 53,514 53,727 53,720 54,795
Oregon 46,900 47,327 47,315 46,994 47,264 47,214 48,142 48,301 49,465
Pennsylvania 140,495 141,680 143,286 143,037 143,267 144,764 144,363 144,469 148,714
Puerto Rico 30,122 30,801 32,334 33,380 34,877 35,089 37,330 37,913 38,215
Rhode Island 10,846 10,989 10,776 10,906 11,191 10,982 11,011 10,883 11,442
South Carolina 58,245 58,704 58,783 58,062 59,340 59,599 60,620 61,783 63,501
South Dakota 12,217 12,156 12,542 12,377 12,077 12,066 12,030 11,906 12,202
Tennessee 81,020 82,015 81,083 81,024 82,457 80,211 81,555 82,372 85,420
Texas 405,899 408,699 406,396 400,103 398,074 404,997 403,653 404,226 413,435
Utah 51,162 51,065 50,419 51,077 49,727 50,541 52,444 52,797 53,837
Vermont 6,051 6,111 6,187 6,039 6,253 6,177 6,272 6,200 6,514
Virginia 101,443 102,266 101,937 101,872 102,983 103,321 102,665 101,744 105,700
Washington 91,223 91,720 90,589 90,530 91,277 91,028 91,991 91,163 93,204
West Virginia 19,645 19,815 20,182 20,689 20,688 20,466 20,225 20,335 21,146
Wisconsin 65,980 66,873 67,815 67,569 68,669 69,006 70,907 70,830 72,773
Wyoming 7,406 7,555 7,775 7,695 7,714 7,708 7,925 8,072 8,244
National 4,000,267 4,025,809 4,024,488 4,015,454 4,022,533 4,067,604 4,066,985 4,067,904 4,197,329

Table C–3 Child Population Demographics, 2016 (continues)
State 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Alabama 62,244 61,435 61,009 61,318 60,927 61,692 64,400 65,951 63,909
Alaska 10,265 10,363 9,962 9,957 9,957 9,807 9,753 10,299 10,038
Arizona 95,192 93,576 92,868 90,402 91,911 90,267 92,733 94,180 92,079
Arkansas 40,578 40,065 39,669 39,655 39,300 38,829 40,022 40,727 39,966
California 518,128 510,902 508,649 505,998 500,697 496,229 510,524 518,946 513,920
Colorado 72,465 72,569 72,340 72,729 71,676 70,361 71,022 70,986 68,881
Connecticut 42,319 43,208 43,944 45,088 44,965 45,637 46,604 48,143 48,475
Delaware 11,462 11,507 11,441 11,587 11,640 11,102 11,709 11,911 11,751
District of Columbia 6,177 5,739 5,500 5,330 5,023 5,145 5,113 5,242 5,213
Florida 236,056 233,996 232,806 226,081 230,039 231,270 239,165 243,327 240,885
Georgia 145,231 143,928 143,401 142,789 142,005 142,332 145,604 146,924 143,139
Hawaii 16,873 16,642 16,498 16,700 16,236 15,639 16,034 15,960 15,686
Idaho 25,428 25,228 25,497 25,076 24,619 24,706 24,784 24,950 24,345
Illinois 165,780 165,566 166,352 168,245 167,155 166,582 170,351 173,032 170,310
Indiana 89,579 88,677 88,509 89,602 88,552 88,560 91,048 92,689 91,406
Iowa 42,020 41,504 40,720 41,004 40,415 40,024 41,081 41,586 41,044
Kansas 40,728 40,343 39,949 40,166 39,790 38,875 39,832 40,567 39,499
Kentucky 57,339 56,763 56,471 56,871 56,202 55,547 57,437 58,261 57,988
Louisiana 63,805 62,159 61,068 60,955 60,618 60,038 61,966 63,404 61,978
Maine 14,398 14,536 14,757 14,798 14,576 14,722 15,244 15,745 16,164
Maryland 76,094 75,416 74,742 75,317 74,227 74,104 76,760 77,757 77,114
Massachusetts 76,283 76,344 77,765 79,144 79,780 79,767 82,068 83,879 84,740
Michigan 122,134 122,736 124,023 126,307 125,633 126,490 131,767 134,215 133,598
Minnesota 73,619 72,732 72,946 73,394 71,641 70,322 71,819 72,217 71,299
Mississippi 43,229 41,577 40,982 40,750 40,049 39,844 41,651 42,550 41,348
Missouri 78,778 78,694 77,891 78,279 77,349 76,874 79,050 80,698 79,385
Montana 13,266 12,909 12,723 12,478 12,496 12,350 12,546 12,562 12,639
Nebraska 26,796 26,748 26,465 26,505 25,834 25,409 25,762 25,678 25,284
Nevada 39,333 38,580 37,606 37,996 37,310 37,033 37,845 38,249 37,272
New Hampshire 14,682 15,040 15,199 15,486 15,692 15,800 16,050 16,722 16,473
New Jersey 111,621 111,309 112,259 114,334 113,677 113,222 116,277 118,968 118,308
New Mexico 28,377 28,191 28,093 27,899 27,229 27,411 27,868 28,351 27,887
New York 228,940 227,929 229,115 231,319 231,622 231,647 237,450 244,054 242,724
North Carolina 132,166 131,304 130,436 131,026 129,649 130,289 133,824 134,819 130,894
North Dakota 9,913 9,659 9,312 9,123 8,778 8,596 8,501 8,640 8,667
Ohio 146,739 147,107 146,211 148,738 147,562 148,405 153,713 155,872 154,186
Oklahoma 54,809 53,652 53,659 53,520 52,618 52,317 52,454 53,066 52,867
Oregon 49,749 48,859 48,451 48,471 48,005 47,726 48,791 50,045 49,708
Pennsylvania 149,313 149,879 149,595 152,077 151,142 151,803 156,229 160,946 159,746
Puerto Rico 39,616 40,715 41,324 40,777 41,180 42,608 46,073 47,853 45,665
Rhode Island 11,515 11,871 11,805 12,135 11,940 12,103 12,231 12,772 12,983
South Carolina 64,181 62,349 61,512 61,464 60,621 60,813 62,469 63,602 61,973
South Dakota 12,273 12,039 11,873 11,701 11,332 10,897 11,091 11,343 11,165
Tennessee 85,267 84,690 83,583 84,421 83,691 83,998 85,784 87,141 86,063
Texas 412,008 409,351 408,192 407,754 403,484 400,281 405,090 407,170 395,775
Utah 53,515 52,433 52,420 51,616 51,136 49,508 49,763 49,882 48,431
Vermont 6,728 6,533 6,761 6,870 6,963 6,899 6,913 7,478 7,579
Virginia 105,626 104,759 104,870 104,859 104,296 103,399 105,812 107,165 105,406
Washington 92,387 90,199 89,505 89,010 87,798 87,249 89,433 90,765 90,427
West Virginia 21,088 20,858 21,024 21,146 21,138 21,174 21,516 22,122 21,811
Wisconsin 73,728 73,446 73,047 74,360 73,165 73,353 74,693 76,199 75,280
Wyoming 8,300 8,120 7,747 7,708 7,543 7,284 7,345 7,467 7,293
National 4,218,140 4,184,734 4,172,546 4,180,335 4,150,883 4,136,339 4,243,064 4,313,077 4,250,666

Table C–3 Child Population Demographics, 2016
American
African- Indian or Pacific
State Boy Girl American Alaska Native Asian Hispanic Multiple Race Islander White
Alabama 558,628 538,195 322,950 5,306 15,405 79,966 34,232 670 638,294
Alaska 96,271 91,056 6,030 33,706 10,585 17,681 23,112 3,280 92,933
Arizona 831,671 799,821 76,322 83,088 44,300 715,299 62,429 2,872 647,182
Arkansas 360,793 344,260 126,979 5,051 10,741 84,505 25,649 3,032 449,096
California 4,643,422 4,449,441 475,093 33,609 1,031,199 4,724,915 430,891 32,490 2,364,666
Colorado 645,466 615,906 53,772 7,616 37,264 393,238 53,605 1,805 714,072
Connecticut 385,357 367,937 85,606 2,151 37,826 176,491 28,668 306 422,246
Delaware 103,663 100,611 51,521 523 7,858 31,617 10,694 96 101,965
District of Columbia 60,786 60,107 66,866 177 2,838 19,646 4,793 51 26,522
Florida 2,116,442 2,030,270 840,715 9,447 109,190 1,264,650 150,529 2,804 1,769,377
Georgia 1,278,704 1,232,840 845,003 4,791 95,145 359,671 89,914 1,631 1,115,389
Hawaii 158,306 149,710 5,752 504 73,887 55,316 94,760 35,056 42,741
Idaho 223,599 213,574 3,880 4,973 5,244 79,627 14,651 794 328,004
Illinois 1,493,524 1,432,585 448,880 3,926 144,979 720,598 97,198 818 1,509,710
Indiana 806,023 769,429 174,608 2,989 34,766 170,788 62,559 597 1,129,145
Iowa 373,985 356,746 35,871 2,564 18,915 72,216 27,741 1,026 572,398
Kansas 365,949 349,002 45,011 5,311 19,411 130,395 36,375 654 477,794
Kentucky 517,439 493,190 92,466 1,713 16,574 59,665 40,766 713 798,732
Louisiana 567,737 546,212 410,136 7,334 17,692 72,355 33,623 446 572,363
Maine 130,892 123,822 6,804 2,011 3,923 6,769 9,342 115 225,750
Maryland 687,341 661,387 419,653 2,984 83,715 196,003 68,066 610 577,697
Massachusetts 703,757 674,345 116,485 2,516 93,668 246,211 53,191 607 865,424
Michigan 1,120,643 1,070,414 349,960 13,063 70,100 179,528 101,352 563 1,476,491
Minnesota 658,303 630,030 113,487 18,325 77,724 112,613 63,516 719 901,949
Mississippi 367,677 353,611 305,662 4,340 6,726 31,916 17,180 239 355,225
Missouri 709,558 677,305 188,272 5,556 26,319 91,484 60,059 2,580 1,012,593
Montana 116,750 110,861 1,523 21,985 1,474 13,489 10,564 174 178,402
Nebraska 242,423 230,902 27,185 5,343 11,684 81,588 18,451 422 328,652
Nevada 346,353 331,074 64,903 5,474 39,988 276,849 42,845 4,483 242,885
New Hampshire 133,245 127,343 4,279 459 8,065 15,531 8,866 85 223,303
New Jersey 1,013,202 971,550 270,333 3,005 190,432 521,526 60,542 731 938,183
New Mexico 250,140 240,523 7,820 49,689 5,378 295,075 12,262 252 120,187
New York 2,136,402 2,044,157 645,242 13,085 334,120 1,026,530 145,010 1,808 2,014,764
North Carolina 1,170,974 1,127,746 526,812 27,727 70,722 363,788 94,743 2,098 1,212,830
North Dakota 90,390 85,921 6,541 13,899 2,425 10,777 7,142 117 135,410
Ohio 1,335,370 1,276,802 387,346 4,175 57,595 155,703 121,213 1,295 1,884,845
Oklahoma 491,652 469,976 76,896 94,652 19,307 160,013 91,413 1,970 517,377
Oregon 444,467 424,260 19,809 10,435 34,585 190,057 52,050 4,358 557,433
Pennsylvania 1,369,452 1,305,353 347,540 3,894 97,937 311,895 103,039 946 1,809,554
Puerto Rico 356,793 339,079 - - - - - - -
Rhode Island 106,630 101,751 15,179 1,152 7,358 51,212 9,582 167 123,731
South Carolina 557,888 539,733 332,934 3,762 16,698 98,767 41,726 704 603,030
South Dakota 109,639 103,648 5,538 27,234 3,322 13,437 9,477 87 154,192
Tennessee 765,988 735,807 290,049 3,151 27,168 137,897 55,321 939 987,270
Texas 3,717,875 3,576,712 853,962 18,140 302,096 3,596,109 184,732 6,076 2,333,472
Utah 473,208 448,565 10,784 8,863 15,993 160,474 31,808 9,625 684,226
Vermont 61,178 57,350 2,308 335 2,410 3,059 4,432 36 105,948
Virginia 954,775 915,348 377,403 4,142 121,185 247,936 103,939 1,350 1,014,168
Washington 832,985 796,513 69,683 23,398 120,382 341,547 128,159 13,897 932,432
West Virginia 192,005 183,063 13,713 600 2,745 9,140 14,766 80 334,024
Wisconsin 658,789 628,904 111,614 13,920 45,829 150,073 49,143 542 916,572
Wyoming 71,499 67,402 1,383 4,055 1,051 20,107 4,431 120 107,754
National 37,966,008 36,372,149 10,138,563 626,148 3,635,943 18,345,742 3,100,551 146,936 37,648,402

Table C–4 Adult Population by Age Group, 2016
State 18–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 65–75 75 and Older
Alabama 459,616 637,487 595,713 644,018 645,092 464,669 319,882
Alaska 75,274 120,453 92,145 94,167 95,322 52,387 24,819
Arizona 672,268 933,128 845,220 846,897 831,142 682,820 488,104
Arkansas 281,738 392,755 364,726 378,897 378,345 283,580 203,154
California 3,848,787 5,917,785 5,159,932 5,195,297 4,688,718 3,089,002 2,257,633
Colorado 534,131 842,409 742,076 717,723 699,310 457,780 285,744
Connecticut 352,024 442,021 423,005 524,150 504,555 323,968 253,435
Delaware 85,584 127,501 109,425 127,686 130,645 99,961 66,989
District of Columbia 80,141 154,991 98,889 77,521 70,044 45,559 33,132
Florida 1,739,623 2,683,425 2,464,289 2,756,310 2,727,163 2,277,584 1,817,333
Georgia 1,005,386 1,422,300 1,362,970 1,416,698 1,236,811 839,325 515,337
Hawaii 128,771 207,903 177,228 178,271 184,406 139,010 104,952
Idaho 156,563 221,561 205,995 198,609 208,250 153,740 101,249
Illinois 1,214,511 1,774,032 1,646,756 1,713,154 1,655,713 1,072,843 798,421
Indiana 661,254 859,672 814,899 865,746 864,467 576,378 415,185
Iowa 322,097 394,373 367,535 389,744 415,998 281,046 233,169
Kansas 297,133 384,606 347,089 354,323 372,194 244,996 191,997
Kentucky 419,965 575,311 553,030 596,852 590,470 411,687 279,030
Louisiana 442,533 681,658 574,245 591,817 603,021 401,909 272,534
Maine 110,283 156,994 150,767 190,748 210,290 152,331 105,352
Maryland 546,861 834,450 761,384 854,746 794,068 516,122 360,088
Massachusetts 704,251 952,329 825,013 961,116 917,004 612,531 461,433
Michigan 975,645 1,251,709 1,157,262 1,348,094 1,392,778 940,935 670,820
Minnesota 507,542 748,412 676,706 727,418 739,313 472,248 359,980
Mississippi 295,917 394,253 365,535 379,963 380,829 266,051 184,890
Missouri 578,691 812,868 731,038 789,759 815,760 559,973 418,048
Montana 99,302 132,974 119,445 125,674 152,474 110,127 74,913
Nebraska 192,718 252,946 230,528 229,683 241,172 159,561 127,183
Nevada 250,225 428,127 387,758 392,859 362,520 275,598 165,544
New Hampshire 127,516 160,604 152,181 200,946 206,156 135,668 91,136
New Jersey 786,743 1,162,064 1,146,197 1,296,291 1,195,810 776,619 595,993
New Mexico 200,362 279,900 242,692 251,742 273,230 203,298 139,128
New York 1,905,051 2,890,773 2,462,561 2,706,129 2,567,707 1,713,040 1,319,469
North Carolina 966,234 1,335,454 1,290,237 1,385,750 1,300,928 941,813 627,652
North Dakota 91,112 113,553 86,414 85,555 95,008 59,210 50,789
Ohio 1,075,485 1,506,910 1,380,120 1,547,688 1,605,369 1,081,030 805,599
Oklahoma 383,081 545,460 478,784 476,602 487,868 341,890 248,248
Oregon 365,578 574,842 531,899 515,568 547,973 415,647 273,231
Pennsylvania 1,187,598 1,677,711 1,481,167 1,735,172 1,804,053 1,237,006 986,715
Puerto Rico 335,328 424,554 428,760 448,612 432,294 364,768 281,119
Rhode Island 114,376 143,107 122,946 146,757 146,895 96,933 77,031
South Carolina 468,536 655,031 599,410 652,087 658,202 513,286 316,946
South Dakota 84,605 112,266 98,592 102,195 115,704 77,464 61,341
Tennessee 617,867 892,054 831,284 894,419 866,723 628,409 418,643
Texas 2,767,722 4,085,728 3,726,287 3,519,013 3,116,019 2,008,449 1,344,791
Utah 343,283 448,845 410,933 314,060 291,159 191,202 129,962
Vermont 67,743 72,709 69,504 86,287 96,891 67,676 45,256
Virginia 812,207 1,172,060 1,085,925 1,162,384 1,080,365 734,524 494,220
Washington 661,194 1,081,072 941,493 947,910 945,770 656,507 424,556
West Virginia 161,635 219,000 222,833 243,143 265,906 203,027 140,490
Wisconsin 561,861 727,719 686,760 779,989 806,268 530,671 397,747
Wyoming 55,188 81,948 71,334 69,052 81,266 53,240 34,572
National 31,179,139 45,101,797 40,898,916 43,235,291 41,895,438 28,995,098 20,894,984

State Commentary
APPENDIX D
This section provides insights into policies and conditions that may affect state data. Readers are
encouraged to use this appendix as a resource for providing additional context to the report’s text and
data tables. Wherever possible, information was provided by each NCANDS state contact and uses
state terminology.
Alabama
Contact Janet Winningham Phone 334–353–4898
Title Program Manager, Office of Data Analysis Email janet.winningham@dhr.alabama.gov
Address Alabama Department of Human Resources

50 Ripley Street
Montgomery, AL 36130–4000
General
Variances in data compared to previous years may occur as we have continued work to strengthen our
data collection processes in the system. Enhancements are planned to improve reporting of services
to children and families, child and caregiver risk factors, alternative responses, and mapping of
NCANDS elements.
Alabama has two types of screened-in responses: child abuse and neglect investigations (CA/Ns)
and prevention assessments (alternative response). For federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016, the Child File
included only CA/Ns, which have allegations of abuse or neglect. Prevention assessments are reports
that do not include allegations of abuse/neglect, but the potential risk for abuse may exist. A preven-
tion assessment may be changed to a CA/N report if an allegation is added to the system. At that time,
policy for CA/N investigations are in affect. The FFY 2016 submission does not include prevention
assessment data.
Reports
For FFY 2016, the number of screened-in reports and children increased over the prior reporting
year affecting the number of reports completed. Outreach efforts with medical personnel and educa-
tion employees are major reasons. During FFY 2014, the department initiated an online mandatory
reporter training for reporting of child abuse and neglect. The Governor, State Department of
Education, Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Program (CBCAP) as well as other partner
agencies supported the rollout of this training and continued public awareness. Education staff
statewide are required to complete the training. Agency staff also are required in their learning plan
to complete this training.
Child Maltreatment 2016 A ppendix d: State Commentary 120
Alabama (continued)
For FFY 2016, the number of screened-out reports and children again increased. The increase
is reflective of efforts in quality assurance to improved documentation by intake workers, who
have been urged to enter all screened-out calls into our SACWIS system. The reported number of
screened-out reports and children includes only those intakes that did not meet the definition of a
CA/N report. This number does not include children in Alabama’s alternative responses, which are
screened in prevention assessments, but are not reported to NCANDS.
FFY 2016 screened-out children includes only those intakes that did not meet the definition of a
CA/N report. This number does not include children in the state’s alternative response program. FFY
2016 screened-out reports includes only reports that did not meet the definition of a CA/N report and
do not include prevention assessments, Alabama’s alternative response. Prevention assessments are
screened-in assessments.
Alabama determines staff needs based on a 6- or 12-month average of different case types. Intake
is one worker per county and more than one for larger counties, based on population. CA/N reports
are counted at a 1:8 ratio for sexual abuse, 1:10 for children who enter foster care, and 1:12 ratio for
all other maltreatment types. Prevention assessments are counted on a ratio of 1:12 and child protec-
tive services (CPS) ongoing cases are staffed at a ratio of 1:18 cases. Prevention assessments are not
reported to NCANDS.
Response time as reported in the Agency File is taken from the calculated average response time
reported in the Child File. Data shows an increase in response time for FFY 2016. A change in map-
ping has again resulted in improving the quality of these data.
Children
FFY 2012 was the first submission to report a maltreatment type of medical neglect. In prior submis-
sions, this maltreatment type was captured under the broad category of neglect. For FFY 2013, a
coding error occurred, and medical neglect was reported under the broad category of neglect. Medical
neglect was reported separately for FFYs 2014–2016. Mapping was completed for race and is reflected
in the FFY 2016 file; all races that apply are reported.
Fatalities
For FFY 2016, all child fatalities are reported in the Child File. The child death review process
determined that there was no additional data to report in the Agency File.
The FFY 2016 number of child fatalities increased from FFY 2015. We have seen a fluctuation in the
number of child fatalities from year-to-year and a decrease for the prior two years. The majority of
child fatality investigations, which are indicated, are suspended for due process or criminal prosecu-
tion. This extends the length of the investigation, which can take several months or years to complete.
For the reported fatalities, the date of deaths occurred in a 5-year range, from FFYs 2012–2016.
Perpetrators
An enhancement to Alabama’s SACWIS system requiring the perpetrator relationship to be estab-
lished to the child went into production mid-FFY 2014. The FFY 2016 submission shows improve-
ment in data quality.

Alabama (continued)
Alabama state statutes do not allow a person under the age of 14 years to be identified as a perpetra-
tor. These reports are addressed in an alternative response. Ongoing services are provided as needed
to the child victim, and the child identified as the person alleged responsible.
Services
Beginning in FFY 2010 and continuing through FFY 2012, Alabama only reported service data
obtained from the state CBCAP grants lead agency for prevention services in the Agency File.
Therefore, it is not advised to compare data to previous years. The FFY 2013 and FFY 2014 Agency
Files include prevention service data for two additional service providers: family outcome-centered
unification services and the parenting assistance line. Enhancements to our SACWIS system and
mapping are planned to allow more complete reporting of services in future submissions. For FFYs
2015–2016, additional service data were provided in the Agency File.
For foster care services, Alabama SACWIS does not require the documentation of the petition or
identity of the court-appointed representative. Petitions are prepared and filed according to the
procedure of each court district. All children entering foster care are appointed a Guardian Ad Litem
(GAL) by the court, who represents their interests in all court proceedings. The state’s SACWIS does
not require the tracking of out of court contacts between the court-appointed representative and the
child victims. Improvement in data quality will require staff training in this area.
The NCANDS category of the number of children eligible for referral to agencies providing early
intervention services under Part C of the IDEA in the Agency File is the number of children who had
indicated dispositions during FFY 2016 and were younger than 3 years. The NCANDS category of
the number of children referred to agencies providing early intervention services under Part C of the
IDEA in the Agency File is the number of referrals the agency providing services reported receiving
during FFY 2016. Training provided to staff at supervisor’s conferences during FFY 2013 and FFY
2014 on early intervention services and reporting appears to be the primary reason for the increase in
number of referrals. The state also had an increase in the number of child victims for FFY 2016.

Alaska
Contact Susan Cable Phone 907–465–2203
Title Research Analyst Email susan.cable@alaska.gov
Address Alaska Office of Children’s Services

P.O. Box 110630
Juneau, Alaska 99811–0630
General
Alaska’s NCANDS submissions are based on extraction code which was developed in 2013 after
performing a complete review and revision of the methodology used to extract Child and Agency File
data from Alaska’s information system. Major methodology changes are summarized in the appropri-
ate sections below. In general, data for 2013 and after may not be comparable to data reported in prior
years and over-the-year changes should be interpreted with caution.
Over-the-year comparisons are also impacted by the entry during 2012 of a backlog of completed
assessment (investigation) data. Since assessments are reported to NCANDS for the year in which
they are entered, this catch-up effort resulted in over reporting of assessments for 2012 and under-
reporting for prior years in relation to when the reports were received and assessment field work
completed.
Reports
With the 2013 submission, Alaska began reporting investigation start date and investigation start time
in its Child File and response time with respect to the initial investigation or assessment in its Agency
File.
In Alaska, one investigation may cover one or more reports of maltreatment. If a report is received
while an investigation is in progress, the new report may be linked to and covered by the already open
investigation. In these instances, the investigation start date will be earlier than the report date and
will therefore be excluded from federal reporting. In recent years the trend has been toward creating
a separate Protective Service Report when a report is received while an investigation is in progress,
with its own corresponding investigation. Multiple investigations may be conducted concurrently.
This practice is under examination.
Children
Beginning with 2013, the determination of prior victim status is based on a child-specific disposition.
In prior years this determination was based on the report disposition. Since a report may cover more
than one child, the new method improves accuracy and results in a decrease in the number of prior
victims reported.
Alaska believes that caregiver risk factors of alcohol and drug abuse have been under-reported in
the past. Toward the end of federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016, Alaska instituted an improved system for
tracking Family Characteristics in Investigations. For FFY 2017, NCANDS syntax will be revised to
harvest the benefits of these SACWIS upgrades.

Alaska (continued)
Fatalities
In Alaska, the authority for child fatality determinations resides with the Medical Examiner’s Office,
not the child welfare agency. The Medical Examiner’s Office assists the state’s child fatality review
team in determining if a child’s death is due to maltreatment. A child fatality is reported only if the
Medical Examiner’s Office concludes that the fatality is due to maltreatment. For NCANDS report-
ing, fatality counts are obtained from a member of the Child Fatality Review Team and reported in
the Agency File.
Services
Methodology changes in 2013 improved the accuracy of services data. For juvenile court petition and
court-appointed representative, data are more complete; for family support services and home-based
services, data are now reported as not collected rather than as missing. For FFY 2016, NCANDS
services reporting methodology was enhanced to ensure that reported services are within the scope of
mapping timelines.
Many services are provided through contracting providers and may not be well-documented in
Alaska’s SACWIS; therefore, analysis of the services array with the state’s NCANDS Child File is
not advised. Agency File data on the numbers of children by funding source are reported for the state
fiscal year (SFY) (July 1–June 30). The NCANDS funding source “other” includes state general funds
and matching funds from contracting agencies.

Arizona
Contact Ellen Grein-Bell Phone 602–255–2740
Title Acting Manager Email egrein-bell@azdes.gov
Address Arizona Department of Child Safety

PO Box 6030
Phoenix, AZ 85012
General
For NCANDS reporting purposes, Arizona does not have a differential response program.
Reports
A new tool was implemented at the Child Abuse Hotline call center to assist in decision making for
child protective services (CPS) reports. This has had the effect of shifting reports from a lower prior-
ity to a somewhat higher one. In addition, legislation was enacted which places a limit on the length
of time between the incident and the reporting of the incident.
Although the number of reports as recorded by NCANDS increased, the actual number of reports
received in federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016 as counted by Arizona remained nearly the same as the
previous year. Arizona counts reports in the period in which they are received, while NCANDS only
includes reports when all findings are complete, regardless of when they are received. Normally, the
difference between the two counts is not significant. However, for the past several years, Arizona
has been in the process of investigating and closing backlogged reports. These are reports that may
have been received in a prior period but the findings completed in the current period. As such, these
reports are included in the current submission in addition to the “new” reports received during the
submission period. Therefore, the number of reports as reported by NCANDS will include any report
received and closed during the submission year plus any received in a prior submission year but close
during the current submission year.
Children
The increase in the number of child victims is related to the increase in reports as explained in the
previous section.
Fatalities
Child fatalities reported to NCANDS come through the Child Abuse Hotline call center and are
recorded in the Arizona SACWIS. Arizona uses information received from the state’s Department of
Vital Statistics, Child Fatality Review Team, law enforcement agencies and the Medical Examiners’
offices when reporting child maltreatment fatality data to NCANDS.
The Child Fatality Review Committee reviews all child deaths in the state, including deaths that
would be identified through the sources listed above. If a local Child Fatality Review Team identifies
an unreported child fatality believed to be due to maltreatment, that information is communicated to
the Arizona Department of Child Safety (DCS). Through this process, DCS receives information on
all child deaths that may have been caused by abuse or neglect.

Arkansas
Contact Nellena Garrison Phone 501–320–6503
Title CHRIS (SACWIS) Information Systems Manager Email nellena.garrison@dhs.arkansas.gov
Address Arkansas Department of Human Services

108 E. 7th Street, Donaghey Plaza North, 1st Floor
Little Rock, AR 72201
General
The following options are available when accepting a referral:
Referral/assessment (R/A) by the Division of Children and Family Services (DCFS) for Fetal Alcohol
Spectrum Disorder (FASD): The following change was made to Arkansas legislation effective July
2011—Act 1143 requires health care providers involved in the delivery or care of infants to report
infants born and affected by Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD). The Department of Human
Services (DHS) shall accept referrals, calls, and other communication from health care providers
involved in the delivery or care of infants born and affected with FASD. The Department of Human
Services shall develop a plan of safe care of infants born with FASD. The Arkansas State Police
hotline staff will use the regular request for DCFS assessment for FASD. These will automatically
be assigned to the DCFS Central Office FASD Project Unit to complete the assessment and closure.
There were no R/A-FASD reports received in federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016.
R/A to the Arkansas State Police Crimes Against Children Division (CACD) for Death Assessment
(DA): Arkansas FFY 2015 legislation mandated per Act 1211––DHS and CACD will conduct an
investigation or DA upon receiving initial notification of suspected child maltreatment or notification
of a child death. This was effective in the Statewide Automatic Child Welfare Information System
(SACWIS) known as the Children’s Reporting and Information System (CHRIS), on August 2,
2015. The Child Abuse Hotline will accept a report for a child death if a child has died suddenly and
unexpectedly not caused by a known disease or illness for which the child was under a physician’s
care at the time of death, including, without limitation, child deaths as a result of the following:
n Sudden infant death syndrome
n Sudden unexplained infant death
n An accident
n A suicide
n A homicide
n Other undetermined circumstance
All sudden and unexpected child deaths will be reported to the Child Abuse Hotline. DA reports are
accepted by the Hotline and do not have allegations of maltreatment at the time of the referral. The
data for R/A-DA reports are not submitted to NCANDS. If the incident does rise to the level of a child
maltreatment investigation, then the referral will be elevated an investigation. Child death investiga-
tion reports are accepted by the Hotline and will have maltreatment allegations at the time of the
referral.
Accept for Investigation: Reports of child maltreatment allegations will be assigned for child
maltreatment investigation pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated 12-18-601. Arkansas uses an
established protocol when a DCFS family service worker or the CACD investigator conducts a child
maltreatment assessment. The protocol was developed under the authority of the state legislator,
(ACA 12-18-15). It identifies various types of child maltreatment that a DCFS family service worker

Arkansas (continued)
or CACD investigator may encounter during an assessment. The protocol also identifies when and
from whom an allegation of child maltreatment may be taken. The worker or investigator must show
that a preponderance of the evidence supports the allegation of child maltreatment. The data for these
reports are submitted to NCANDS.
Accept for Differential Response: Differential response (DR) is another way of responding to
allegations of child neglect. DR is different from DCFS’s traditional investigation process. It allows
allegations that meet the criteria of neglect to be diverted from the investigative pathway and serviced
through the DR track. DR is designed to engage low- to moderate-risk families in the services needed
to keep children from becoming involved with the child welfare system. Counties have a DR team
to assess for safety, identify service needs, and arrange for the services to be put in place. DR began
with five pilot counties on October 1, 2012 and was implemented statewide for all 75 counties by
August 12, 2013 through a periodic schedule. FFY 2013 was the first year the state submitted DR data
to NCANDS.
Reports
On May 14, 2014, a new way to capture the incident date was implemented. A new incident date
information grouping was added that requires either a recent child maltreatment allegation incident
date or an approximate incident date range to be entered for each child maltreatment allegation that
is alleged by report and collected during investigation. The approximate incident date values that are
available for selection include the following (only one value can be selected per allegation):
n 0–3 months ago
n 3–6 months ago
n 6–9 months ago
n 9–12 months ago
n 1–3 years ago
n 3–5 years ago
n 5–10 years ago
n 10+ years ago
n Unknown
This change was implemented because DCFS believes that unfortunately, often when people call in
regarding alleged maltreatment that occurred years ago, they don’t have an exact date, so the person
entering the info either guesses a date or leaves it blank. We enhanced CHRIS so that it would allow
the person entering the info a range of time rather than a specific date (e.g., abuse occurred 3 years
ago, 2 years ago, 1 year ago, 6–12 months ago, etc.).
The child maltreatment allegations with an approximate date range value selected are mapped to the
NCANDS category of blank=not collected/not applicable. This could lead to a lower percentage of
children with incident date reported.
Fatalities
The substantiated fatalities increased from 40 in FFY 2015 to 42 in FFY 2016. This increase in
substantiated fatalities can be attributed to the increased number of reported child fatalities as a result
of severe physical abuse and unsafe sleep environments. This increase is also a result of the increased

Arkansas (continued)
number of child maltreatment reports in the state due to poverty, substance abuse, and the violence
experienced in many Arkansas communities.
Arkansas also attributes the increased number of substantiated fatalities to the Arkansas Child Death
Review Panels and the increased awareness and education stemming from it. To facilitate compre-
hensive death scene investigations, the Arkansas Commission on Child Abuse, Rape and Domestic
Violence partnered with the Arkansas Child Death Review Panel, the Arkansas Medical Examiner’s
Office and the Coroners Association to provide sudden unexplained infant death investigation training
to medical examiners and deputy coroners throughout the state. The additional training, along with
the implementation of the sudden unexplained infant death protocol, assisted the agency in gathering
pertinent information which has improved the quality of the death investigations.
Arkansas FFY 2015 legislation mandated per Act 1211, DHS and CACD will conduct an investigation
or death assessment upon receiving initial notification of suspected child maltreatment or notification
of a child death. All sudden and unexpected child deaths will be reported to the Child Abuse Hotline.
DA reports are accepted by the Hotline and do not have allegations of maltreatment at the time of the
referral. If the incident does rise to the level of a child maltreatment investigation, then the referral
will be elevated to an investigation. An increase in child fatalities may be due to the number of DAs
becoming an investigation that are founded true.
Arkansas DCFS receives notice of child fatalities through the Arkansas Child Abuse hotline. The
reports include referrals from mandated reporters such as, physicians, medical examiners, law
enforcement officers, therapists, and teachers, etc. A report alleging a child fatality can also be
accepted from a nonmandated reporter. Nonmandated reporters include neighbors, family members,
friends or members of the community. The guidelines for reporting is as follows: mandated and
nonmandated persons are asked to contact the child abuse hotline if they have reasonable cause to
believe that a child has died as a result of child maltreatment.
Arkansas DCFS continues to receive child fatality data from the Arkansas Infant and Child Death
Review Panel. The statewide fatality statistics are compiled by the Arkansas Department of Health’s
vital records division. The information is submitted to the Arkansas Child Death Review Panel
annually.
Services
The investigators frequently do not document services provided to the families during the investiga-
tion process. This documentation is often left to the caseworker to enter when the case is opened.
In Arkansas, all children younger than 3 with a true overall finding, regardless of role in referral,
are referred to The Arkansas Division of Developmental Disabilities Services (DDS)/Part C for an
early intervention screening. For FFY 2016, 2,928 child victims under age 3 were eligible for referral.
Arkansas does not currently track how many children are actually referred to the agencies. The state
is analyzing how to track this information in the future.

California
Contact Alicia Sandoval Phone 916–653–1812
Title Chief Email alicia.sandoval@dss.ca.gov
Address California Department of Social Services

744 P Street, MS 9–13–84
Sacramento, CA 95814
General
California’s differential response approach is comprised of three pathways:
n Path 1 community response—family problems as indicated by the referral to the child welfare
system do not meet statutory definitions of abuse and neglect, and the referral is evaluated out by
child welfare with no investigation. Based on the information given at the hotline, however, the
family may be referred by child welfare to community services.
n Path 2 child welfare services with community response—family problems meet statutory
definitions of abuse and neglect, but the child is safe and the family has strengths that can meet
challenges. The referral of suspected abuse and neglect is accepted for investigation by the child
welfare agency, and a community partner goes with the investigator to help engage the family
in services. A case may or may not be opened by child welfare, depending on the results of the
investigation.
n Path 3 child welfare services response—the child is not safe and at moderate to high risk for
continuing abuse or neglect. This referral appears to have some rather serious allegations at the
hotline. It is investigated, and a child welfare services case is opened. Once an assessment is
completed, these families may still be referred to an outside agency for some services, depending
on their needs.
On June 1, 2015, California implemented a policy to track commercially sexually exploited (CSE)
youth referrals with the state allegation of exploitation. On May 21, 2016, California implemented a
new policy to track CSE youth referrals with the state allegation of exploitation with a sub-allegation
of commercial sexual exploitation. The sub-allegation of CSE could be used to separate CSE from
other exploitation referrals; however, the entry of a sub-allegation is optional, and the California
Department of Social Services (CDSS) is still working toward uniform entry of this sub-allegation
type for CSE referrals to improve data quality.
Reports
The report count includes both the number of child abuse and neglect reports that require, and then
receive, an in-person investigation within the timeframe specified by the report response type.
Reports are classified as either immediate response or 10-day response. For a report that is coded
as requiring an immediate response to be counted in the immediate response measure, the actual
visit (or attempted visit) must occur within 24 hours of the report receipt date. For a report that is
coded as requiring a 10-day response to be counted in the 10-day response measure, the actual visit
(or attempted visit) must occur within 10-days of the report receipt date. For the quarter ending
September 2016, the immediate response compliance rate was 96.7 percent and the 10-day response
compliance rate was 91.9 percent.
The number of staff budgeted for screening, intake and investigation (emergency response and
emergency response assessment) was based on 58 counties for state fiscal year (SFY) 2015.

California (continued)
Fatalities
Fatality data submitted to NCANDS is derived from notifications (SOC 826 forms) submitted to the
CDSS from County Child Welfare Services (CWS) agencies when it has been determined that a child
has died as the result of abuse and neglect, as required by SB 39, Chapter 468, Statutes of 2007. The
abuse and neglect determinations reported by CWS agencies can be and are made by local coroner/
medical examiner offices, law enforcement agencies, and/ or county CWS/probation agencies. As
such, the data collected and reported via SB 39 and used for NCANDS reporting purposes does
reflect child death information derived from multiple sources. It does not, however, represent informa-
tion directly received from either the state’s vital statistics agency or local child death review teams.
The data are used to meet the reporting mandates of the federal Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act (CAPTA) and for the Title IV-B, Annual Progress and Services Report (APSR).
Calendar year (CY) 2015 is the most recent validated annual data, and is therefore reported for federal
fiscal year (FFY) 2016. It is recognized that counties will continue to determine causes of fatalities
to be the result of abuse and/or neglect that occurred in prior years. Therefore, the number reflected
in this report is a point in time number for CY 2015 as of January 2017, and may change if additional
fatalities that occurred in CY 2015 are later substantiated to be the result of abuse and/or neglect. Any
changes to this number will be reflected in subsequent year’s APSR reports.
Prior to CY 2011, the CDSS used data reconciled by the California Department of Public Health
(CDPH) for submission to NCANDS. The data that were used for prior NCANDS submissions was
based on a reconciliation audit conducted by the CDPH which examined data from five data sources:
local county child death review teams, Child Abuse Central Index, Vital Statistics, Department of
Justice, and the CWS/Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The audit was conducted
in 2008 for child deaths occurring in CY 2005 and these data were used for multiple NCANDS data
submissions as these were the most reliable data available at that time. However, with the enactment
of SB 39, the CDSS determined that the data provided through the SB 39 reporting process would
provide not only more current information regarding child maltreatment deaths in California than the
reconciliation audit conducted by CDPH, but would also provide data from multiple agency sources
providing more reliable data for NCANDS. As a result, beginning with the FFY 2010 NCANDS data
submission in CY 2011, the CDSS changed the data source to the SB 39 data. It is important to note
that while SB 39 data were used in the FFY 2016 NCANDS submission, the data were derived from
CY 2015. Additionally, beginning in CY 2012 CDSS began to receive reports of fatalities determined
to be the result of abuse and neglect and caused by an unknown third party. NCANDS submissions
from FFY 2013 (CY 2012) forward include such fatalities.
CDSS will continue to look at how it might use other information sources to enrich the data gathered
from the SOC 826 reporting process and reported to NCANDS. In September 2012, the CDSS
issued a best practices all-county information notice to counties encouraging annual reconciliation
of CWS child death information with other entities that review child deaths such as local child death
review teams, and attendance at local child death review team meetings to participate in discussions
regarding deaths which may have been the result of abuse and or neglect. As part of the techni-
cal assistance provided to counties regarding SB 39, the CDSS has also recently begun collecting
information regarding county child welfare agencies’ roles on local child death review teams and
how their participation may lead to further identification and reporting of deaths that are a result of

abuse or neglect. Additionally, the CDSS continues to collaborate and share data with the CDPH, for
purposes of the reconciliation audit of child death cases in California. The most recent information
shared to date is for CY 2010. We are hopeful that once the reconciliation audit data are for a more
current period, the CDSS will be able to compare that data, which includes state vital statistics data,
with our SOC 826 fatality statistics to compare actual numbers reported to help inform our NCANDS
submission.
Services
Prevention services in California exist in a state-supervised, county administered system. This
system has the advantage of allowing the 58 counties in California flexibility to address child abuse
prevention efforts through a local lens. This approach, however, results in 58 sets of challenges in
program implementation, evaluation and reporting. The CDSS funded direct prevention services for
children and families through the allocation of Community Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP),
Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF), Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) and
Child Abuse Prevention, Intervention and Treatment (CAPIT, state funds) to California counties.
This is the Office of Child Abuse Prevention’s (OCAP’s) second year of utilizing the Efforts to
Outcomes software as the primary data collection and reporting tool. The OCAP has recognized
inconsistencies during the data collection process and is working to resolve these issues by providing
data collection technical assistance and tools to counties for direct service providers. In this reporting
period, 11 counties reported a decrease in the number of families served with CAPIT funding, and 13
counties reported a decrease in the number of families served with PSSF funding. Additionally, 27
counties reported a decrease in the number of children served with CAPIT funding, and 31 counties
reported a decrease in the total number of children served with PSSF funding. There was a decrease
in the total number of children and families served by CAPIT and PSSF due to several factors
including:
n Implementation of new programs
n Decrease in demand and less participation in services
n Staff turnover
n Recognized inaccuracies in reporting from counties in the prior fiscal year (FY)
Recognized inaccuracies in reporting CAPIT and PSSF included Mendocino County misreporting the
number of children served by youth programs last year. This year, more accurate reporting was done,
but as a result, there is an 80 percent decrease in the total number of children served in Mendocino
this year.
Additionally, 22 counties reported an increase in the number of children served with CBCAP fund-
ing, and 12 counties reported an increase in the number of families served with CBCAP funding.
An increase in the total number of children and families served by CBCAP funds occurred due to a
variety of factors including:
n Reached more families and children through community outreach
n Increased the number of youth programs funded
n Increased collaboration with community partners
n Recognized inaccuracies in reporting from counties in the prior fiscal year

Recognized inaccuracies in reporting CBCAP counts included Monterey County misreporting the
number of children served last FY. As a result, the number of children served with CBCAP funding
increased by 3,022 children in this reporting period. Ventura County reported serving 0 children in
the last FY, but this year, they reported serving 20,965; in this case, it may be a result of how they
chose to count those served. Other contributing factors to the increase/decrease in children and fami-
lies served include changing the funding sources of services. For example, Madera County utilized
CBCAP funding instead of CAPIT funding to serve 25,000 families.
With CAPTA funding, the OCAP released a request for applications for the Community In Unity
grants and Innovative Partnership Program grants. Eleven applications were funded. These grants
have the intended purpose of providing money to communities utilizing a collective impact approach
to strengthening families and reducing child maltreatment. Also with CAPTA funding, an online
mandated reporter training was funded. In FFY 2016, over seventy-one thousand (71,697) profession-
als from varying disciplines including social workers, teachers, child care providers, mental health
professionals and law enforcement completed the training. Mandated reporter training is essential to
identifying the early signs of abuse and neglect and preventing further escalation of abuse and neglect
issues. Not all families reported to CWS have a case opened, but families referred are given access to
services that they may not have accessed otherwise.

Colorado
Contact Ann Dueñas Phone 303–866–5174
Title Federal Analyst Email ann.duenas@state.co.us
Address Colorado Department of Human Services

1575 Sherman Street
Denver, CO 80203–1714
General
Colorado continues its work to improve the quality of NCANDS data by assessing areas in which
reporting can either be created or improved upon for upcoming data submissions. Moreover, the
Institutional Abuse Review Team (IART) reviews all reports of child abuse and neglect which occur
within institutions and facilities that provide 24-hour care to children and are under the oversight
of the Office of Children, Youth, and Families. Part of IART’s ongoing review includes technical
assistance for counties to achieve consistent and accurate victim and perpetrator reporting.
The state provides the following assessment options for reports of child abuse and neglect:
n High Risk Assessment
• Children are interviewed separately from the person responsible for the abuse and neglect.
• A formal determination of whether abuse and neglect occurred is documented.
• Post assessment services may be provided via transfer to either voluntary (non- court-involved)
or court-involved traditional services case.

n Family Assessment Response (FAR)
• Caseworkers have the option to meet with the entire family during the initial contact.
• No official determination of whether abuse and neglect occurred or not is documented.
• Families understand the assessment is not voluntary, but that post-assessment services are
available and voluntary.
As of federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016, FAR was implemented in 19 counties. Each year, more counties
implement FAR which increases the number of reports with an alternative response disposition.
Reports
On January 1, 2015, the Colorado Department of Human Services (CDHS) launched a new statewide
child abuse and neglect hotline: 1–844–CO–4–KIDS. Designed to provide an easy-to-remember
phone number for individuals to use statewide, suspected child abuse and neglect is reported effi-
ciently and directly to Colorado’s 64 counties and two tribal nations. Each county and tribal nation is
responsible for accepting and responding to child abuse and neglect inquiries and reports. All callers
speak with a call-taker 24-hours a day, 365-days a year. The hotline system captures critical informa-
tion and ensures that calls across the state are handled quickly and appropriately with the goal of
ensuring that no child is harmed.
Fatalities
Colorado’s Child Fatality Review Team (CFRT) has statutory authority to review information
regarding child fatalities, egregious incidents, and near fatal incidents to gain a better understanding
of the causes, trends, and system responses to child maltreatment and to develop recommendations
in policy, practice, and systemic changes which improve the overall health, safety, and wellbeing
of children in Colorado and mitigate future child fatalities. In addition to currently required child
fatality reporting, at the beginning of August 2012, Colorado county human service agencies began

Colorado (continued)
reporting all egregious and near fatal incidents that were suspicious for abuse and neglect within 24
hours of becoming aware of the incident.
A member of the state’s Administrative Review Division is represented on the CFRT and works
with county human services agencies to document these fatalities, egregious incidents, and near
fatal incidents correctly and timely into the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System
(SACWIS).
During FFY 2016, the marked increase in the number of Colorado fatalities is not due to a single
event and remains in the range of recent fatality reports.

Connecticut
Contact Edward Meeker Phone 860–418–8373
Title Subject Matter Expert Email edward.meeker@ct.gov
Address Connecticut Department of Children and

Families Information Systems
110 Bartholomew Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106
General
The state of Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF) has continued to implement
the Strengthening Families Practice Model. This model of practice is one of direct intervention based
upon engagement and assessment. The model emphasizes case supervision that includes administra-
tive, educational and supportive components as one of its primary strategies to improve practice.
DCF has continued to pay particular attention to the quality our differential response system (DR)
case practice this year. A well-defined quality assurance and improvement methodology also was
prepared this year in collaboration with the DCF Court Monitor’s office, and largely based on
relevant items contained in the Child and Family Service Review On-Site Review Instrument, was
implemented in most Regions during 2016. During 2017, the instrument will be utilized statewide
and results will be discussed on a monthly basis between Regional managers and the Senior
Administrative Management team.
To ensure the quality of practice for our Family Assessment Responses (FAR), or alternative
response, DCF contracted with the University of Connecticut (UCONN) to provide a Performance
Improvement Center (PIC). This program has conducted in-depth analyses of data from our practice,
as well as providing expert technical assistance to our community partner agencies. During this past
year, our memorandum of agreement (MOA) was amended to expand the scope of data provided
to the PIC, allowing for a more robust and complete analysis of our differential response system. It
should be noted that, as in the case of many other states, Connecticut is not yet reporting data from
reports handled through our alternate response. Therefore, the decline in the total volume of reports
documented in NCANDS is not indicative of the actual trend in reporting for Connecticut at this time.
During federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016, DCF accepted 31,480 reports for a response, 12,007 (38.1%)
of which were handled through our alternative response. A detailed analysis of data from our FAR
and community partner agencies, the Community Supports for Families (CSF), can be found by on
our website. Included in these analyses are findings that the rate of subsequent reports for families
first referred to FAR has been decreasing and families served by CSF demonstrate improvement in
outcomes.
DCF has also continued to strengthen the response to victims of human trafficking. There were
at least 190 reports of children/youth trafficked in Connecticut during 2016. There are six Human
Anti-Trafficking Response Teams (HART) in Connecticut. These are interdisciplinary teams lead
by experienced HART Liaisons and includes the child’s treatment team, specialized providers, and
legal representation if indicated. The HART Liaison works with the local Multi-Disciplinary Team
(MDT) ensuring the cases are afforded all resources to maximize prosecutions while ensuring the
child and families are provided the appropriate medical and mental health services they are entitled to
as victims. Further, CT PA 16-71 was enacted on 10/1/16 which established a Trafficking in Persons
Council consisting of representatives from 15 different state and municipal agencies, and 9 members
of the public. The council was established to identify criteria for providing services to child and

Connecticut (continued)
adult trafficking victims, to coordinate the collection, analysis and dissemination of data regarding
human trafficking, and consult with governmental and non-governmental organizations in developing
recommendations to strengthen state and local efforts to prevent trafficking, protect and assist victims
of trafficking, and prosecute traffickers. Other provisions of the statute include required training for
hotel or similar lodging staff in recognizing potential victims and/or trafficking activities.
Reports
DCF continued its tradition of focusing on staff training this year. We continued the Connecticut
version of the Leadership Academy for Middle Managers (LAMM), through which an additional
14 managers were trained this year. Additionally, our first classes of the Leadership Academy
for Supervisors (LAS) were completed this year. The LAS is a web-based leadership training for
experienced child welfare supervisors. The curriculum consists of six online modules each based
on the National Child Welfare Workforce Institute (NCWWI) Leadership Model. The LAS provides
21 contact hours of self-directed online learning with two tracks to enhance learning transfer; a
personal learning plan to develop leadership skills and a change initiative project to contribute to
systems changes within the agency. There were 21 supervisors that finished their LAS group, and an
additional 19 who started a new group this year.
Children
Connecticut DCF has continued its evolution into a racial justice organization whereby the beliefs and
values are embedded, and practices are developed to oppose and eliminate racism. It was, therefore,
important for the Department to discuss its ongoing work through a racial justice lens. Consequently,
it incorporated this work into its cross-cutting themes, as a performance expectation for each DCF,
region, facility, and division for 2014, and created a standing statewide Racial Justice Workgroup to
lead, guide, and support these efforts statewide. During FFY 2016, workgroups continued to develop
and implement specific strategies to decrease disparities and improve overall outcomes. Each per-
formance indicator was discussed at statewide and local committee meetings so management could
obtain input on activities that might improve outcomes. Finally, regional management teams were
required to present performance on outcome indicators by race/ethnicity, and ensure that efforts were
made to improve outcomes for all racial/ethnic groups, to the Senior Administrative Management
team on an ongoing basis.
Fatalities
DCF continued its focus on enhancing agency practices to prevent child fatalities this year with
implementation of the Eckerd Rapid Safety Feedback (ERSF) process. ERSF is a process that utilizes
predictive analytics to determine, and keep updated on an ongoing basis, the most significant correlates
to specified child welfare events based on the data contained in our SACWIS. DCF has asked that the
program be refined to identify cases at high risk of serious physical injury or fatality. ICARE™ is the
Mindshare Predictive Analytics module that goes beyond data mining and statistical analysis. ICARE
is a deterministic approach to identify the probability of a specific outcome at the child level. The
outputs therefore will apply a probability of a certain outcome to an individual child and will enable the
Connecticut Eckerd Rapid Safety Feedback (CT-ERSF) team to identify children with the likelihood
of a poor outcome. The objective is to provide the CT-ERSF team early visibility of these children who
may require increased oversight. These cases are targeted for an intensive quality assurance review and
staffing process. During this year, the ICARE™ was tuned, staff completed their training, and began
reviewing and staffing cases predicted to be at high risk for severe or fatal maltreatment.

The CT-ERSF reviews and staffings have several components. The qualitative reviews are done on
all cases identified by the prediction and focus on three critical case practices that, when completed
to standard, could reduce the probability of serious injury or death: quality safety planning, qual-
ity supervisory reviews, and quality and frequency of home visits. If there are unaddressed safety
concerns identified during the review, a meeting is held between CT-ERSF staff and our Area Office
Social Worker and Supervisor to ensure that those assigned to the case have a clear understanding of,
and sufficient answers to, the following nine guiding questions:
n Is family history sufficiently assessed and incorporated into decision-making?
n Are face-to-face contacts with families made with sufficient frequency to assess family circum-
stances and emerging dangers?

n Are interviews and observations sufficient to assess child needs and how they contribute to family
dynamics?
n Are initial and/or ongoing assessments sufficient to identify and address parent needs?
n Is communication and collaboration with partners/stakeholders sufficient to gather and share all
pertinent information?
n Are safe sleep assessment and discussions of sufficient quality to protect children from unsafe
sleep conditions?
n Do documented observations of interactions between the parent/caretaker and child sufficiently
inform assessment of child safety?

n Are safety actions implemented which are sufficient to prevent maltreatment?
n Does the supervisory review identify gaps and provide appropriate and sufficient guidance regard-
ing all of the above? Is accountability to that guidance ensured?
Services
Connecticut DCF has continued to make strides in its family teaming model of case planning and
decision making that is anchored in the expansion of its Strengthening Families Practice Model to
foster families as well as to families on the Department’s caseloads. We have reformed the shape
of the foster care system by greatly increasing the use of relatives and kin if a child still needs to be
removed for his or her own protection. Currently, about 41 percent of children in state care live with
a relative or kin––compared to just 21 percent in January 2011. The Considered Removal Child and
Family Team Meetings (CR-CFTM) have continued to be an effective method to divert children from
care. In fact, 87 percent of the children who were the subject of a CR-CFTM during 2016 were either
not removed or placed with kin.
DCF has also continued efforts to limit the use of the permanency plan goal of Other Planned
Permanent Living Arrangement (OPPLA) to children age 16 and over. The proportion of all children
in care with this permanency goal has decreased from 17.8 percent on January 1, 2016, to 15.6 percent
in January 1, 2017.
During 2016, DCF implemented a tier classification system for evaluating and monitoring contracted
service providers. The Contract Management Unit has recently embarked on a comprehensive
process, in partnership with other Department units, to develop a contracted program classifica-
tion tool designed to enhance the Department’s ability to evaluate contracted programs and create
opportunities for ongoing quality improvement at a program and system level. The overarching goal
of the tier classification system is to ensure the quality, accountability, and effectiveness of outcomes
in all Purchase of Service Contract programs. Additionally, the classification of contracted programs

will enhance the Department’s ability to support decision making toward the improvement of client
outcomes while providing support to the contracted provider network. This year DCF also completed
work on ensuring that all such contracts contain results-based accountability performance measures.
September 2016 marked the second progress update of the Connecticut Children’s Behavioral Health
Plan following its initial submission in October 2014. The plan represented 50 plus activities under-
way across 6 state agencies supporting the seven thematic areas. Some of these include:
n Expansion of intensive in-home services including:
• Multisystemic Therapy (MST) Building Stronger Families
• MST Transitioning Age Youth
• Family-Based Recovery
• Emergency Mobile Psychiatric Services
• Intimate Partner-Violence—Family Assessment Intervention Response (FAIR)
n Trained over 200 people in the Circle of Security model
n Expanded Short-term Family Integrated Treatment (SFIT) Capacity for respite/crisis stabilization
from 14 to 82 bed capacity

n Continued expansion of the Modular Approach to Therapy for Children (MATCH) to 15 agencies
with an average of 5 trained clinicians per agency

n Continued expansion of Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Trauma (CBITS) to over 90 school-
based clinicians in 13 communities and multiple schools

Delaware
Contact Tylesha Rumley Phone 302–633–2674
Title Family Services Support Administrator Email tylesha.rumley@state.de.us
Address Delaware Department of Services for Children,

Youth and their Families
1825 Faulkland Road
Wilmington, DE 19805
General
For the past eight years, Delaware has received historical numbers of reports of child abuse, neglect,
and dependency. Due to the steadily increasing amounts of hotline reports and investigation cases
over the past few years, Delaware put into practice two strategies in federal fiscal year (FFY) 2012;
Structured Decision Making® (SDM) at the report line and Tier 1 at investigation. These initiatives
have been in place for four full FFYs, and Delaware has seen significant results. In FFY 2016, statis-
tics indicate that although Delaware’s hotline reports received continuously climbed, the percentage
of screened-out reports compared to the prior FFY increased. The screen-out rate between FFYs
increased by 3 percent, while the screen-in rate for investigations decreased at the same percentage.
Overall, the implementation of both strategies has helped DFS to use resources and expertise more
efficiently. Delaware is better able to determine which cases require full investigations from those
needing referrals for services unrelated to child abuse and neglect.
In FFY 2013, Delaware implemented two additional initiatives; SDM at Investigation and Family
Assessment Intervention Response (FAIR). The SDM tool implemented at investigation helps
our workers to consistently determine safety threats and to make decisions using the same set of
standards. Research from other states has shown that using assessments to inform service decisions
reduces future child maltreatment. This coincides with DFS’ transformation initiatives under the
name Outcomes Matter. The motto of Outcomes Matter is enhancing practice and transforming
lives. The second policy change Delaware put into operation was FAIR at the report line. FAIR is
our version of a differential response (DR) that allows us to divert low-risk families to services in
the community. A qualitative study determined that a high percentage of Delaware teens enter foster
care due to parent/child conflict. Currently, Delaware is piloting the program for our teen population,
because we felt FAIR presented an opportunity for intervention of these youth and their families
outside of the formal child welfare system. For the current NCANDS reporting period, Delaware did
not provide FAIR data in the Child File because the program has not been fully implemented across
the state.
Reports
The state’s intake unit uses a SDM tool to collect sufficient information to access and determine the
urgency to investigate child maltreatment reports. In May 2012, Delaware implemented SDM at the
report line, causing us to re-evaluate and change our response time for familial abuse investigations.
Currently, all screened-in reports are assessed in a three-tiered priority process to determine the
urgency of the workers first contact; Priority 1—Within 24 hours, Priority 2—Within 3 days and
Priority 3—Within 10 days. The calculation of our average response time for FFY 2016 is 231.41
hours. Delaware’s reported response time is made up of both family abuse (99.3%) and institutional
abuse (0.7%) investigations. For FFY 2016, accepted referrals for family abuse cases are identified as
63 percent routine/Priority 3, 13 percent Priority 2, and 24 percent urgent/Priority1 in response.

Delaware (continued)
From FFY 2015 to FFY 2016, there was an increase in the total number of referrals received by our
agency. Delaware also found that the number of referrals accepted for investigation over the 12-month
period decreased from the previous FFY. In FFY 2016, there was an increase of more than 12 percent
in the number of referrals screened out from FFY 2015. Although the number of hotline referrals con-
tinues to rise each year, Delaware’s acceptance rate as dropped from the rate that has been maintained
the last three reporting years.
Management cites that the increasing number of referrals received have resulted from the public’s
awareness of child maltreatment and professionals mandatory reporting. Subsequent public service
campaigns for reporting child abuse and neglect may also have had an impact in the number of
reports received. Considering the vast increase in the number referrals coming in, Delaware has
continued to increase the number of staff responsible for hotline and investigation functions.
Children
The state uses 50 statutory types of child abuse, neglect, and dependency to substantiate an investiga-
tion. The state code defines the following terms:
n Abuse—any physical injury to a child by those responsible for the care, custody and control
of the child, through unjustified force as defined in the Delaware Code Title II §468, including
emotional abuse, torture, criminally negligent treatment, sexual abuse, exploitation, maltreatment
or mistreatment.
n Neglect—the failure to provide, by those responsible for the care, custody, and control of the child,
the proper or necessary: education as required by law; nutrition; or medical, surgical, or any other
care necessary for the child’s well-being.
n Dependent Child—a child under the age of 18 who does not have parental care because of the
death, hospitalization, incarceration, residential treatment of the parent or because of the parent’s
inability to care for the child through no fault of the parent.
Under the Department of Services for Children, Youth and Their Families, children may be placed
in residential care from the child welfare program, the juvenile justice program or the child mental
health program. In calculating child victims reunited with their families in the previous 5 years, the
state did not include placements from prevention and behavioral health or juvenile justice as a previ-
ous placement in which the child was reunited with their family if there was no placement involve-
ment with the child welfare agency. This is because the prevention and behavioral health and juvenile
justice placements alone are not the direct result of the caretaker’s substantiation of abuse, neglect, or
dependency.
Fatalities
The state does not report any child fatalities in the Agency File that are not reported in the Child File.
For FFY 2016, the state reported zero fatalities as a result of child maltreatment.
Perpetrators
Delaware maintains a confidential Child Protection Registry for individuals who have been sub-
stantiated for incidents of abuse and neglect since August 1st, 1994. The primary purpose of the
Child Protection Registry is to protect children and to ensure the safety of children in childcare,
health care, and public educational facilities. The Child Protection Registry in Delaware does not
include the names of individuals, who were substantiated for dependency; parent and child conflict,

Delaware (continued)
adolescent problems, or cases opened for risk of child abuse and neglect. An adult Delaware intends
to substantiate will receive a written notice of intent to substantiate at the conclusion of the investiga-
tion. The notification includes a hearing request form that must be returned within thirty days of
the postmarked date of the notification. The hearing request form enables the individual to receive
a substantiation hearing in Family Court. When the hearing request form is not returned within the
specified timeframe, the individual will automatically be entered on the Child Protection Registry. A
minor will receive a substantiation hearing without submitting a hearing request form. This registry is
not available through the Internet and is not the same as the Sex Offender Registry maintained by the
Delaware State Police State Bureau of Identification.
Services
During FFY 2016, Delaware’s Children’s Department saw a decline in the number of children receiv-
ing prevention services through the Promoting Safe and Stable Families funding sources. There also
was a decline in families that received prevention services through the Social Services Block Grant
(SSBG) and the NCANDS category of “other” funding sources. This decline was attributed to the loss
of programs or contractors for service delivery. Delaware, however, saw a small increase in children
who received prevention services through the NCANDS category of “other” funding source. Our K-5
Early Intervention Program focuses on supporting positive child behavior and strengthening skills
of parents of at-risk children in elementary schools across the state of Delaware. This prevention
program served more families than the prior fiscal year (FY).
In FFY 2014, Delaware’s Child Welfare Agency has implemented several initiatives to improve our
outcomes with families. One of our programs is Team Decision Making, which engages the family,
informal supports and formal supports in planning for children who are at-risk of coming into care.
This process has remained steady in diverting youth into kinship placements instead of foster care.
The state is currently re-evaluating the data for children eligible for referral and referred under Part
C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and working on ways to report more
accurate information. These data have been suspended until further notice.

District of Columbia
Contact Lori Peterson Phone 202–434–0055
Title DC Child Information Systems Administration Email lori.peterson@dc.gov
Address Child and Family Services Agency

200 I Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003
General
As previously reported, the District operates under a differential response (DR) protocol. All
screened-in reports are directed to one of the following pathways.
n Investigation—This traditional pathway is for families who have a report of suspected severe child
abuse and/or neglect, such as physical or sexual abuse. The District will conduct an investigation in
accordance with District law and determine whether maltreatment occurred or if the child is at-risk
of maltreatment.
n Family Assessment—This pathway provides services for families with moderate- to low-risk
reports. On a voluntary basis, families engaged with social workers to identify issues and needs
and to connect them to community services, so the families get help without entering the child
welfare system.
As expected, the number of alternative response reports continues to increase. These are reports that
were accepted for the family assessment pathway.
Reports
The NCANDS disposition of alternate response nonvictim represents the children of families that are
reported in the District’s family assessment reports.
Children
During the District’s implementation of the evidenced based Structured Decision Making screening
tool (SDM) in October 2013, the District added a new maltreatment type called suspicious child
death. Currently suspicious child death is not a NCANDS value for maltreatment type. The District’s
logic for suspicious child death maltreatment type is mapped to the NCANDS category of “other”
maltreatment type.
Fatalities
The Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) participates on the District-wide Child Fatality Review
committee and uses information from the Metropolitan Police Department and the District Office of the
Chief Medical Examiner (CME) when reporting child maltreatment fatalities to NCANDS.
The District reports fatalities in the Child File when neglect and abuse are contributing factors to the
death.
During the District’s implementation of the evidenced based SDM in October 2013, the District added
a new maltreatment type called suspicious child death. Currently suspicious child death is not an
NCANDS maltreatment type. The District’s logic for “suspicious child death maltreatment type is
mapped to NCANDS category of “other.” The District defines suspicious child death as a report of
child death that is either unexplained, or concern exists that abuse or neglect by a caregiver contrib-
uted to or caused the child’s death.

District of Columbia (continued)
Services
There were no Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) funds allocated for this reporting period.
It is the District’s practice to refer children aged 0–5 for development screening. In federal fiscal year
(FFY) 2016, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) data reported to NCANDS by
the District decreased due to a change in the reporting universe. For FFY 2016, the universe reflects
children who are 0–3 years old whereas in FFY 2015, it consists of 0–5 years old.

Florida
Contact Keith Perlman Phone 850–717–4675
Title Manager, Data and Reporting Unit Email keith.perlman@myflfamilies.com
Address Florida Department of Children and Families

1317 Winewood Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399–0700
Reports
The criteria to accept a report are that an alleged victim:
n Is younger than 18 years
n Is a resident of Florida or can be located in the state at the time of the report
n Has not been emancipated by marriage or other order of a competent court
n Is a victim of known or suspected maltreatment by a parent, legal custodian, caregiver, or other
person responsible for the child’s welfare (including a babysitter or teacher)

n Needs supervision and care and has no parent, legal custodian, or responsible adult relative
immediately known and available to provide supervision and care

n Is suspected to be a victim of human trafficking by either a caregiver or noncaregiver.
The response commences when the assigned child protective investigator attempts the initial face-to-
face contact with the alleged victim. The system calculates the number of minutes from the received
date and time of the report to the commencement date and time. The minutes for all cases are
averaged and converted to hours. An initial onsite response is conducted immediately in situations in
which any one of the following allegations are is made: (1) a child’s immediate safety or well-being is
endangered, (2) the family may flee or the child will be unavailable within 24 hours, (3) institutional
abuse or neglect is alleged, (4) an employee of the department has allegedly committed an act of child
abuse or neglect directly related to the job duties of the employee, (5) a special condition referral
(e.g., no maltreatment is alleged but the child’s circumstances require an immediate response such
as emergency hospitalization of a parent, etc.) for services, or (6) the facts of the report otherwise so
warrant. All other initial responses must be conducted with an attempted onsite visit with the child
victim within 24 hours.
Florida maps all reports with a disposition of not substantiated to the NCANDS category of
unsubstantiated.
Children
The Child File includes both children alleged to be victims and other children in the household.
The Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) identification number field
is populated with the number that would be created for the child regardless of whether that child has
actually been removed and/or reported to AFCARS.
Although the Florida Hotline uses the state maltreatment type of threatened harm only for narrowly
defined situations, investigators may add this maltreatment to any investigation when they are unable
to document existing harm specific to any maltreatment type, but the information gathered and docu-
mentation reviewed yields a preponderance of evidence that the plausible threat of harm to the child
is real and significant. Threatened harm is defined as behavior which is not accidental and which is
likely to result in harm to the child, which leads a prudent person to have reasonable cause to suspect
abuse or neglect has occurred or may occur in the immediate future if no intervention is provided.

Florida (continued)
However, Florida does not typically add threatened harm if actual harm has already occurred due to
abuse (willful action) or neglect (omission, which is a serious disregard of parental responsibilities).
Most data captured for child and caregiver risk factors will only be available if there is an ongoing
services case already open at the time the report is received or opened due to the report.
Fatalities
Fatality counts include any report closed during the year, even those victims whose dates of death
may have been in a prior year. Only verified abuse or neglect deaths are counted. The findings are
verified when a preponderance of the credible evidence results in a determination that death is the
result of abuse or neglect. All suspected child maltreatment fatalities must be reported for investiga-
tion and are included in the Child File. The death maltreatment is an actual code that is reported as
the NCANDS category of “other” maltreatment type.
Perpetrators
By Florida statute, perpetrators are only identified as responsible for maltreatment in cases with veri-
fied findings. Licensed foster parents and nonfinalized adoptive parents are mapped to the NCANDS
category of nonrelative foster parents, although some may be related to the child. Approved relative
caregivers (license not issued) are mapped to the NCANDS category of relative foster parent.
Florida reviews all children verified as abused with a perpetrator relationship of relative foster parent,
nonrelative foster parent, or group home or residential facility staff during the investigation against
actual placement data to validate the child was in one of these placements when the report was
received. If it is determined that the child was not in one of these placements on the report received
date, then the perpetrator relationship is mapped to the NCANDS category of “other.”
Services
Florida uses client eligibility statistics to allocate costs among federal and state funding sources. This
is due to the implementation of the IV-E waiver and a cost pool structure based on common activi-
ties performed that are funded by various federal and state awards. As such, Florida does not link
individuals receiving specific services to specific funding sources (such as prevention).

Georgia
Contact Michael Fost Phone 404–463–0845
Title Operations Analyst Email michael.fost@dhs.ga.us
Address Georgia Department of Human Services

2 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
General
The Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS), SHINES, captures nearly
all the data in the NCANDS files. Each year enhancements are made to improve accuracy and
completeness. Comparing data from different years may lead to inaccurate conclusions.
In addition to enhancements in the SHINES database, changes in policy and practice also necessitate
caution when comparing data from one year to another.
Two significant changes occurred in Georgia during federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016. The first was the
creation of a Child Abuse Registry on July 01, 2016. The creation of the registry has been accompa-
nied by a large decrease in the number of substantiated incidents. The second important change in
Georgia in FFY 2016 was a new practice called the Initial Safety Assessment (ISA). Prior to ISA, the
decision to investigate a case or choose alternative response (AR) was made by intake workers at the
time of the maltreatment report. Now, that decision is generally made by ISA workers after visiting
the home and the alleged victim(s). There are still some high-risk cases which may be assigned as
investigations at intake, such as cases with allegations of serious injury or maltreatment in care. This
change in policy has been accompanied by a large shift in the number of cases assigned as investiga-
tions and AR. Previously, about 60 percent of child protective services (CPS) cases were investigated,
and the remaining 40 percent were AR. Since ISA began on August 06, 2016, between 60 percent and
70 percent of cases are AR.
Reports
The components of a CPS report are: (1) a child younger than 18 years, (2) a referral of conditions
indicating child maltreatment, and (3) a known or unknown individual alleged to be a perpetrator.
Referrals that do not contain all three components of a CPS report are screened out. Such situations
may include historical incidents, custody issues, poverty issues, truancy issues, situations involving
an unborn child, and/or juvenile delinquency issues. For many of these, referrals are made to other
resources, such as early intervention or prevention programs.
This is the fifth year that Georgia has reported AR cases. Note that AR policy changed in April 2012.
The NCANDS report source category of social services personnel includes Department of Human
Resources staff. The NCANDS category of “other” report source includes Georgia data categories:
other nonmandated reporters, religious leaders or staff, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) staff.
Fatalities
Georgia relies upon partners in the medical field, law enforcement, Office of the Child Advocate, and
other agencies in identifying and evaluating child fatalities.

Georgia (continued)
Perpetrators
Georgia’s FFY 2016 Child File does not include perpetrator data. Prior to changes in legal processes
made this year, perpetrator privacy was protected by the state constitution. New legislation enabled
the creation of a Child Abuse Registry, which began July 01, 2016. It is possible that perpetrator data
may become available to NCANDS in 2017.

Hawaii
Contact Ricky Higashide Phone 808–586–5109
Title Research Supervisor Email rhigashide@dhs.hawaii.gov
Address Hawaii Department of Human Services

1390 Miller Street, Room 211
Honolulu, HI 96813
General
Reports to Child Welfare Services (CWS) are handled in one of three ways through our differential
response (DR) system:
n Reports assessed with low risk and no safety issues identified are referred to Family Strengthening
Services (FSS).
n Moderate risk reports with no safety issues identified are diverted to Voluntary Case Management
(VCM).
n The reports assessed with severe/high risk and safety issues identified are assigned to a CWS unit
for investigation.
There are no identified alleged victims of maltreatment in reports assigned to FSS and VCM. While
VCM cases are documented in the Child Welfare database they are non-CPS cases. FSS reports/
cases are not documented in the state CPS system. In FSS and VCM assessments, if maltreatment or a
safety concern is indicated, the case will be returned to CWS for investigation.
Children
The NCANDS category of “other” maltreatment type includes the state categories threatened abuse
or threatened neglect. Threatened harm does not meet the level of evidence for psychological abuse
or physical abuse. “Threatened Harm means any reasonably foreseeable substantial risk of harm to a
child”, HRS §587a-4. Threatened harm is recognized in Hawaii Revised Statutes.
Hawaii uses three disposition categories: confirmed, unconfirmed, and unsubstantiated. A child is
categorized in NCANDS as substantiated if one or more of the alleged maltreatments is confirmed
with more than 50 percent certainty. A Child disposition is mapped to the NCANDS disposition of
unsubstantiated if the maltreatment is not confirmed with 50 percent certainty or if it is an unsubstan-
tiated frivolous report of abuse or neglect.
Fatalities
We report all child fatalities as a result of maltreatment in the state Child Protection System.
The Medical Examiner’s office, local law enforcement, and Kapiolani Child Protection Center—
Multidisciplinary Team conducts reviews on death or near death cases of maltreatment.
Perpetrators
The state CPS system designates up to two perpetrators per child. The perpetrator maltreatment fields
are currently blank. The information was in writing, not coded for data collection.
Services
The state is not able to report some children and families receiving prevention services under the
Child Abuse and Neglect State Grant, the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), and the NCANDS
category of “other” funding sources because funds are mixed. Funds are allocated into a single
budget classification, and multiple sources of state and federal funding are combined to pay for most
services. All active cases receive services.
Idaho
Contact Robbin Thomas Phone 208–334–5798
Title Program Systems Specialist Email robbin.thomas@dhw.idaho.gov
Address Idaho Department of Health and Welfare

450 West State Street, 5th Floor
Boise, ID 83720
Reports
Idaho has a centralized intake unit which includes a 24-hour telephone line for child welfare referrals.
The intake unit maintains a specially trained staff to answer, document, and prioritize calls, and
documentation systems that enable a quicker response and effective quality assurance. Allegations are
screened out and not assessed when:
n The alleged perpetrator is not a parent or caregiver for a child, the alleged perpetrator no longer
has access to the child, the child’s parent or caregiver is able to be protective of the child to prevent
the child from further maltreatment, and all allegations that a criminal act may have taken place
have been forwarded to law enforcement.
n The alleged victim is under 18 years of age and is married.
n The alleged victim is unborn.
n The alleged victim is 18 years of age or older at the time of the report, even if the alleged abuse
occurred when the individual was under 18 years of age. If the individual is over 18 years of age,
but is vulnerable (physically or mentally disabled) all pertinent information should be forwarded to
Adult Protective Services and law enforcement.
n There is no current evidence of physical abuse or neglect and/or the alleged abuse, neglect, or
abandonment occurred in the past and there is no evidence to support the allegations.
n Although Child and Family Safety (CFS) recognizes the emotional impact of domestic violence
on children, due to capacity of intake, we can only respond to referrals of domestic violence that
involve a child’s safety. Please see the priority response guidelines for more information regarding
child safety in domestic violence situations. Referrals alleging that a child is witnessing their par-
ent/caregiver being hurt will be forwarded to law enforcement for their consideration. Additionally,
referents will be given referrals to community resources.
n Allegations are that the child’s parents or caregiver use drugs, but there is no reported connection
between drug usage and specific maltreatment of the child. All allegations that a criminal act may
have taken place must be forwarded to law enforcement.
n Parental lifestyle concerns exist, but don’t result in specific maltreatment of the child.
n Allegations are that children are neglected as the result of poverty. These referrals should be
assessed as potential service need cases.

n Allegations are that children have untreated head lice without other medical concerns.
n Child custody issues exist, but don’t allege abuse or neglect or don’t meet agency definitions of
abuse or neglect.
n More than one referral describes the identical issues or concerns as described in a previous refer-
ral. Multiple duplicate referrals made by the same referent should be staffed with the local county
multi-disciplinary team for recommendations in planning a response.
More information regarding intake, screening, and priority guideline standards can be found on the
Idaho Health and Welfare website.
The investigation start date is defined as the date and time the child is seen by a child protective
services (CPS) social worker. The date and time are compared against the report date and time when

Idaho (continued)
CPS was notified about the alleged abuse. Idaho only reports substantiated, unsubstantiated: insuffi-
cient evidence, and unsubstantiated: erroneous report dispositions. Most regions are not large enough
to dedicate staff separately into screening, intake, and assessment workers.
Children
At this time, the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) cannot provide
living arrangement information to the degree of detail requested. The state’s SACWIS counts children
by region rather than by county. There are seven regions in Idaho. The NCANDS category of “other”
maltreatment types includes the state categories of abandonment, adolescent conflict, exploitation,
alcohol addiction, drug addiction, and finding of aggravated circumstances.
For caregiver risk factors, Idaho’s safety assessment model was implemented in early federal fiscal
year (FFY) 2015 and does not list domestic violence or financial issues as separate risk issues. These
risk issues are captured under broader risk issue of dangerous living environment/child fearful
of home situation/caregiver with uncontrolled or violent behavior and the risk issue of unused or
unavailable resources.
Fatalities
Idaho compares fatality data from the Division of Family and Community Services with the Division
of Vital Statistics for all children younger than 18. The Division of Vital Statistics confirms all
fatalities reported by child welfare via the state’s SACWIS and provides the number of fatalities for
all children for whom the cause of death is homicide.
Perpetrators
The NCANDS category of “other” perpetrator relationships includes the state categories of foster
sibling, household staff, clergy, nonrelated juvenile, school personnel, and self.
Services
At this time, Idaho is unable to report public assistance data due to constraints between Idaho’s
Welfare Information System and SACWIS.

Illinois
Contact David Nika Phone 217–558–5060
Title Supervisor – Legacy Mars Team Email David.Nika@illinois.gov
Address Illinois Department of Children and Family Services

1 North Old State Capitol Plaza
Springfield, IL 62701
The state did not provide commentary in time for the release of the Child Maltreatment 2016 report.

Indiana
Contact Doris Tolliver Phone 317–232–4439
Title Chief of Staff Email doris.tolliver@dcs.in.gov
Address IIndiana Department of Child Services

302 W. Washington Street, Room E 306-MS47
Indianapolis, IN 46204–2739
General
In July 2012, Indiana instituted a new child welfare information system: The Management Gateway
for Indiana’s Kids (MaGIK). Coinciding with the implementation of MaGIK, the department also
developed a new extraction code and mapping documents to effectively collect and organize data for
NCANDS. Indiana has engaged in continuous improvement efforts to refine the data collection and
mapping process through system modifications and overall enhancements, including a new intake
system that launched in February 2016. To facilitate these efforts, Indiana sought out technical assis-
tance through the National Resource Center for Child Welfare Data and Technology (NRC-CWDT).
MaGIK is an ever-evolving, umbrella system which has further incorporated services, billing, case
management, and the overall data management, organization, and extraction components.
Reports
The Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) does not assign for assessment a referral of alleged
child abuse or neglect that does not:
n Meet the statutory definition of child abuse and neglect and/or
n Contain sufficient information to either identify or locate the child and/or family and initiate an
assessment (Indiana Policy Manual 3.6).
Based on findings from the Commission to Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities, beginning
July 1, 2016, the Indiana Department of Child Services does not screen out reports that allege abuse or
neglect against a child that is under the age of 3.
The following four types of referrals do not receive an assessment:

n Screen out: These referrals meet one or both conditions listed above. No further action is taken
within or outside of the department due to insufficient information by the report source or the
information given to the hotline does not meet requirements for diversion to voluntary services or
information and referral.
n Refer to Licensing: These referrals meet the first condition above and meet requirements for a
response from the departments licensing unit. (E.g., reporter has concerns about a foster home
that do not meet statutory definition of child abuse and neglect, but complaint does cause licensing
concern/s such as too many children living in a foster home).
n Service Request: These referrals meet the first condition above and meet action requirements for
the family to be contacted for voluntary services coordinated or provided by the department. These
referrals would include service requests through the DCS Children’s Mental Health Initiative and
the Collaborative Care Program.
n Information and Referral: Referral meets the first condition listed above and the report source is
given information by hotline staff and verbally referred to outside agencies as appropriate. (E.g.
Reporter is concerned about developmental issues with their child. The hotline would give the
report source information about and contact information for Indiana’s early intervention program).

Indiana (continued)
Prior to federal fiscal year (FFY) 2013, The NCANDS category of screened-out referrals only
included calls that were in the above state category of screen out. Beginning in FFY 2013, Indiana
includes all four types of referrals not assigned for assessment in the NCANDS category of screened-
out referrals.
Fatalities
All data regarding child fatalities are submitted exclusively in the Child File.
Perpetrators
Indiana launched a new intake system in February 2016 that better aligns with the system used for
completing assessments and case management cases. This has allowed for more accurate perpetrator
data entry.
Services
Improvements in data collection allowed Indiana to report prevention data by child. Therefore, to not
duplicate counts, Indiana does not provide prevention data on a family level.

Iowa
Contact Dr. Jesse Renny-Byfield Phone 515–281–6379
Title Management Analyst II Email jrennyb@dhs.state.ia.us
Address Iowa Department of Human Services

Hoover State Office Building
1305 East Walnut
Des Moines, IA 50319
General
Iowa implemented a differential response (DR) system in January 2014. At intake, families are
assigned either to the family assessment path, or the child abuse assessment path, the latter being for
more serious allegations. Families can be reassigned from the family assessment path to child abuse
assessment path, but never reassigned from the child abuse assessment path to the family assessment
path. Abuse findings are not made in family assessments. After a family assessment, families are
referred to the Community Care program. First and foremost in Iowa’s DR system is child safety, and
Iowa’s path reassignment rate continues to match recommended guidelines. Likewise, confirmed or
founded abuse assessments remain at levels comparable to pre-differential response levels.
Reports
In federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016, the number of abuse and neglect reports increased slightly, likely
reflecting an increase in Iowa’s general youth population. Neglect or deprivation of necessities is
the abuse category that saw an increase both at intake and in report disposition. Abuse and neglect
reports are accepted for assessment based on whether they meet the requirements to be considered
child abuse in the state.
Children
In FFY 2016 the number of children involved in an abuse assessment increased slightly from FFY
2015. This is likely the result of a rise in Iowa’s population, and the increase may be linked to the
natural increase in youth population.
Fatalities
The number of child fatalities is the same in FFY 2016 as it was in FFY 2015. Starting in FFY 2015,
child fatalities where abuse was a contributing factor were also reported. We work collaboratively
with a multidisciplinary child death review team for all child deaths, not only those related to abuse
and neglect.
Perpetrators
Iowa began reporting perpetrator fields in the Child File beginning with the FFY 2014 NCANDS
submission. To be considered a perpetrator in Iowa, an individual must have had caretaker respon-
sibilities at the time of the alleged abuse, and the assessment must conclude that the individual is
responsible for the abuse.
Services
Iowa has both preventative and post-response services. Post-response services are under the state’s
pay-for-results model of child welfare, and are closely coordinated and linked with Child Protection
Workers to enable a smooth transition of families from formal services to family-centered services
after an assessment.

Kansas
Contact Jill Loebel Phone 785–368–8172
Title Data, Continuous Performance Improvement & Email jill.loebel@ks.gov

Systems Management Unit
Address Kansas Department for Children and Families

555 S. Kansas Ave
Topeka, KS 66603
General
In July 2016, Kansas’s level of evidence changed from clear and convincing to preponderance. In
addition to the finding category of substantiated, the finding category of affirmed was added in July
2016. Affirmed is defined as a reasonable person weighing the facts and circumstances would con-
clude it is more than likely than not (preponderance of the evidence) the alleged perpetrator’s actions
or inactions meet the abuse/neglect definition per Kansas Statutes Annotated (KSA) and Kansas
Administrative Regulations (KAR). Furthermore, the state category of unable to locate (closed-no
finding) also was added as a finding category back in January 2014.
Reports
Reasons for screening out allegations of child abuse and neglect include:
n The initial assessment of reported information does not meet the statutory definition: The report
does not contain information that indicates abuse and neglect allegations according to Kansas law
or agency policy.
n The report fails to provide the information necessary to locate child: The report doesn’t provide an
address, adequate identifying information to search for a family, a school where a child might be
attending, or any other available means to locate a child.
n The report is known to be fictitious or malicious: The report was received from a source with a
demonstrated history of making reports that prove to be fictitious or malicious, and the current
report contains no new or credible allegations of abuse or neglect.
n The Department of Children and Families (DCF) does not have authority to proceed or has a
conflict of interest if: Incidents occur on a Native American reservation or military installation;
alleged perpetrator is a DCF employee; alleged incident took place in an institution operated by
DCF or Kansas Department of Corrections-Juvenile Services (KDOC-JS); or alleged victim is age
18 or older.
n Incident has been or is being assessed by DCF or law enforcement: A previous report with the
same allegations, same victims, and same perpetrators has been assessed or is currently being
assessed by DCF or law enforcement.
The NCANDS category of “other” report source includes the state categories of self, private agen-
cies, religious leaders, guardian, Job Corp, landlord, Indian tribe or court, other person, out-of-state
agency, citizen review board member, collateral witness, public official, volunteer and Crippled
Children’s services.
Children
The NCANDS category of “other” maltreatment type includes the state category of lack of
supervision.

Kansas (continued)
Fatalities
Kansas uses data from the Family and Child Tracking System (FACTS) to report fatalities to
NCANDS. Maltreatment findings recorded in FACTS on child fatalities are made from joint investi-
gations with law enforcement. The investigation from law enforcement and any report from medical
examiner’s office would be used to determine if the child’s fatality was caused by maltreatment. The
Kansas Child Death Review Board reviews all child deaths in the state of Kansas. Child fatalities
reported to NCANDS are child deaths as a result of maltreatment. Reviews completed by the state
child death review are completed after all the investigations, medical examiner’s results, and any
other information related to the death is made available. The review by this board does not take place
at the time of death or during the investigation of death. The state’s vital statistics reports on aggre-
gate data are not information specific to an individual child’s death. Kansas is using all information
sources currently made available when child fatalities are reviewed by the state child death review
board.
Perpetrators
The NCANDS category of “other” perpetrator relationship includes the state category of not related.
Services
Kansas does not capture information on court-appointed representatives. However, Kansas law
requires every child to have a court-appointed attorney (GAL).

Kentucky
Contact Tracy DeSimone Phone 502–564–7635
Title Quality Assurance and Policy Development Email tracy.desimone@ky.gov

Branch Manager
Address Kentucky Department for Community Based Services

275 East Main Street, 3E-A
Frankfort, Kentucky 40621
General
Kentucky does not have an alternative or differential response. In 2014, the state began utilizing a
new approach to the investigation response (IR) and the alternative response (AR). Before the change
in the business process, the intake worker made the decision regarding IR/AR at intake. With the new
approach, the assessment worker makes the IR/AR determination at the completion of the assessment.
In other words, IR/AR is now a finding, rather than an assessment path. Kentucky’s name for the IR
is investigation and for AR is family in need of services. Kentucky’s business practice does allow
multiple maltreatment levels to be present in a single report. For example, one report could have a
disposition/finding of unsubstantiated and services needed if it is determined that maltreatment did
not occur, but the family needed services from the agency.
In federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016, Kentucky removed the state dispositional finding of services not
needed from the standards of practice (SOP) and from SACWIS. Mapping has been reviewed and
updated as appropriate. Kentucky currently has the following dispositional findings for investigations/
assessments: death/near death substantiated, found/substantiated, substantiated, unsubstantiated, and
services needed.
Kentucky has changed the way it collects information regarding an individual’s military affiliation.
This was previously captured on the case-level. However, it has been changed to be captured at the
individual level to ensure accuracy for the individual. NCANDS mapping forms have been reviewed
and updated as appropriate.
Coding has been changed to ensure that the child county of residence is coded as unknown when
information regarding the county of report is missing and the county is coded as other if the county of
report is out of state.
In previous submissions, child born exposed to drugs/and or alcohol was one value in Kentucky’s
SACWIS. To improve NCANDS reporting, these values have been split into two values: child born
exposed to drugs and child born exposed to alcohol. This has the potential to cause a difference in
these counts for this submission compared to previous submissions.
Family structure values have been changed in Kentucky’s SACWIS to improve NCANDS report-
ing. Kentucky now collects data for the following values: single mother household, single father
household, single mother household with one other adult, single father household with one other adult,
married couple, unmarried two parent household with two biological/adoptive parents, unmarried
two parent household with one biological/adoptive parent and one cohabitating partner, two parent
household, marital status unknown, nonparent relative caregiver household (includes relative foster
care), and nonrelative caregiver household (includes nonrelative foster care).

Kentucky (continued)
Program and IT staff have worked since the prior submission and will continue to work to make
improvements regarding data extraction and reporting, as well as verifying that the data mapping is
correct based on the modifications made to SACWIS.
Reports
Kentucky has made changes to the reporting of screened-out children for this reporting period. The
state does not collect in depth information regarding the number of children who are screened out for
referrals that do not meet criteria for abuse or neglect.
Children
In previous submissions, Child born exposed to drugs and/or alcohol was one value in Kentucky’s
SACWIS. To improve NCANDS reporting, these values have been split into two values: child born
exposed to drugs and child born exposed to alcohol. This has the potential to cause a difference in
these counts for this submission compared to previous submissions.
In December 2015, race and ethnicity was made mandatory for all individuals in an assessment. This
accounts for any differences in this submission for child victim and nonvictim race and ethnicity
related elements.
Fatalities
Kentucky has confirmed the fatality count for the FFY 2016 submission.
Perpetrators
In December 2015 race and ethnicity was made mandatory for all individuals in an assessment.
This would account for any differences in this submission for perpetrator race and ethnicity related
elements.
Services
Kentucky reported service data for victims and nonvictims. In 2016, Kentucky used Social Services
Block Grant (SSBG) funds for protective services and did not contribute to preventative services for
families or children.
For FFY 2016, service provision was not interrupted during contract renewal as had occurred in
previous years. As a result, this allowed for an increase in children served.
Kentucky has entered into a data exchange with the Kentucky Department and Education (KDE) and
data collection has begun on IDEA eligible and referred children. The state does not have a sufficient
amount of data to report with this submission. The state anticipates the ability to report these data
with the next submission.

Louisiana
Contact Kristen Brown Phone 225–342–7208
Title Child Welfare Consultant Email kristen.brown.dcfs2@la.gov
Address Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services

PO Box 3318
Baton Rouge, LA 70821
General
As of August 2014, the state eliminated the Alternative Response Family Assessment (ARFA)
program and revised its Child Protection Investigation Program (CPIP) into the Child Protection
Assessment and Services Program (CPS). CPS uses the same safety and risk assessment instruments
and documentation protocols for all screened-in reports. By implementing a unified assessment
framework, it is no longer necessary to distinguish between alternative response and investigation
cases at intake. Consequently, no ARFA cases were reported to NCANDS for federal fiscal year
(FFY) 2016.
Reports
In Louisiana, all referrals of child abuse and neglect are received at a toll free, centralized intake
center that operates on a 24-hour basis. The centralized intake worker and supervisor review the
information and use an intake Structured Decision Making tool (SDM) to determine whether the case
meets the legal criteria for intervention. Referrals are screened in if they meet the three primary cri-
teria for case acceptance: a child victim younger than 18 years, an allegation of child abuse or neglect
as defined by the Louisiana Children’s Code, and the alleged perpetrator meets the legal definition
of a caregiver of the alleged victim. The primary reason for screened-out referrals is that either the
allegation or the alleged perpetrator does not meet the legal criteria. Some intake reports are neither
screened out nor accepted. These are additional information reports related to active investigations.
Generally, if a second report is received within 30 days of receipt of an initial report that is still under
investigation, the second report is classified as an additional information report. In FFY 2016, more
specialized training was provided to Centralized Intake Managers to aid in determining what cases
should be accepted in accordance with the Louisiana Children’s Code definition of Child Abuse and
Neglect. There were already two review processes in place to provide additional oversight to assure
that cases with a disposition of not accepted did not meet the definition of child abuse or neglect. It is
believed that the additional training and quality assurance case review resulted in an increase in the
number of screened-out reports of 10.52 percent over FFY 2015.
After the discontinuation of the ARFA program in 2014, a Priority tier system was implemented. In
the past, Louisiana had 5 separate response—Immediate (contact within 24 hours), High-Priority
(contact within 3 days), Non-Emergency (contact within 5 days), ARFA 3-day and ARFA 5-day. The
new priority system was implemented with four separate priorities all routed to Investigation: priority
1 (contact within 24 hours), priority 2 (contact within 48 hours), priority 3 (contact within 3 days), and
priority 4 (contact within 5 days).
Over the past several years, Louisiana has seen increased worker turnover. As a result, veteran case-
workers see an increased caseload as new staff are required to carry a reduced caseload during their
first 6 months of service with the Department. Higher caseloads can lead to increased response time
overall. Further, in FFY 2016, Louisiana experienced two significant flooding events in March and
August of 2016. Though every effort was made to limit the number of Child Welfare staff pulled to
work in Shelters and DSNAP (Disaster Food Stamp) locations, due to the magnitude of the disasters,

Louisiana (continued)
it was necessary to include some Child Welfare staff, in addition to other staff across the state. The
reduction in Child Welfare staff during these disasters would also account for delayed response time
seen in FFY 2016.
The NCANDS disposition of substantiated investigation case is coded in the state as having a
disposition of valid. When determining a final finding of valid child abuse or neglect, the worker and
supervisor review the information gathered during the investigation and if the following answers are
“yes,” then the allegation is valid:
n An act or a physical or mental injury which seriously endangered a child’s physical, mental or
emotional health and safety; or

n A refusal or unreasonable failure to provide necessary food, clothing, shelter, care, treatment or
counseling which substantially threatened or impaired a child’s physical, mental, or emotional

health and safety; or a newborn identified as affected by the illegal use of a controlled dangerous
substance or withdrawal symptoms as a result of prenatal illegal drug exposure; and
n The direct or indirect cause of the alleged or other injury, harm, or extreme risk of harm is: a
parent, a caregiver as defined in the Louisiana Children’s Code, an adult occupant of the household
in which the child victim normally resides, or a person who maintains an interpersonal dating or
engagement relationship with the parent or caregiver or legal custodian who does not reside with
the parent or caregiver or legal custodian.
The NCANDS disposition of unsubstantiated investigation case is coded in the state as having a
disposition of invalid. This disposition is defined as a case with no injury or harm, no extreme risk
of harm, insufficient evidence to meet validity standard, or a noncaregiver perpetrator. If there is
insufficient evidence to meet the agencies standard of abuse or neglect by a parent, caregiver, adult
household occupant, or person who is dating or engaged to a parent or caregiver, the allegation shall
be found invalid. If there is evidence that any person other than the parent, caregiver, or adult house-
hold occupant has injured a child with no culpability by a parent, caregiver, adult household occupant,
or a person dating/ engaged to one of the aforementioned, the case will be determined invalid.
It is expected that the worker and supervisor will determine a finding of invalid or valid whenever
possible. For cases in which the investigation findings do not meet the standard for invalid or valid,
additional contacts or investigative activities should be conducted to determine a finding. When
a finding cannot be determined following such efforts, an inconclusive finding is considered. It is
appropriate when there is some evidence to support a finding that abuse or neglect occurred but there
is not enough credible evidence to meet the standard for a valid finding. The inconclusive finding is
only appropriate for cases in which there are facts or dynamics that give the worker or supervisor a
reason to suspect child abuse or neglect occurred. Staff is expected to use caution when using this
finding as it not to be used as a “catchall” finding.
Children
In FFY 2016, there was a significant decrease in the number of victims (10.6%). The decrease in
number of victims is proportionate to the reduced number of investigations, from 12,631 in FFY 2015
to 11,289 in FFY 2016.

Louisiana (continued)
Fatalities
For FFY 2016, there was an increase of 2 fatalities reported in the total number of validated (substan-
tiated) child abuse or neglect fatalities.
Changes were implemented in our system of record to more accurately identify the maltreatment type
related to the fatality by requiring staff to include an additional allegation signifying the type of abuse
or neglect related to the fatality.
Perpetrators
The current method of extracting NCANDS data captures perpetrator involvement in family inves-
tigation cases but does not capture perpetrator relationship to child victims. Therefore, perpetrator
relationship is reported as unknown for 99 percent of cases.
Services
The Child Welfare agency provides such postinvestigation services as foster care, adoption, in-home
family services, protective daycare and family-in-need of services. Many services are provided
through contracted providers and are not reportable in the Child File. To the extent possible, the
number of families and children receiving services through Title IV-B funded activities are reported
in the Agency File.

Maine
Contact Lori Geiger Phone 207–624–7911
Title Information Systems Manager Email lori.geiger@maine.gov
Address Maine Department of Health and Human Services

2 Anthony Avenue, 11 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333–0011
General
Maine utilizes two methods for report of abuse and neglect assignment. One method is the assign-
ment to State Child Welfare District staff for appropriate low/moderate and high severity reports. An
additional method is for appropriate low/moderate severity reports to be assigned to the alternative
response program under Department contract with community agencies. Alternative response agen-
cies make no findings of maltreatment but will return a report to the State Child Welfare Intake if that
determination is required. An alternative response program assessment and documentation is held in
each agency’s own system and do not interface with the State Automated Child Welfare Information
System (SACWIS). The alternative response program assessments are not included in the NCANDS
Child File. There were 2,206 low/moderate severity reports assigned to alternative response agencies
during federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016.
Reports
The number of alleged abuse and neglect reports received decreased in FFY 2016. All reports,
including reports that are not appropriate which are referred to as screened-out, are documented in
the SACWIS. The decision for screening out a report is performed at the Intake Unit. Reports that do
not meet the statutory definition of child abuse and/or neglect and which the criteria for appropriate-
ness to accept is not met are considered not appropriate and are screened out. The Maine statutory
definition of child abuse and/or neglect is a threat to a child’s health or welfare by physical, mental or
emotional injury or impairment, sexual abuse or exploitation, deprivation of essential needs or lack
of protection from these or failure to ensure compliance with school attendance requirements under
Title 20-A, section 3272, subsection 2, paragraph B or section 5051-A, subsection 1, paragraph C, by a
person responsible for the child.
Maine’s reported investigation start date is defined as the date and time (in hours and minutes) of the
first face-to-face contact with an alleged victim. Maine Child Welfare Policy requires this contact to
occur within 72 hours of the approval of a report as appropriate for child protective services.
Children
The total number of victims associated with completed assessments in FFY 2016 increased by 2.2
percent from FFY 2015. The state documents all household members and other individuals involved
in a report. Some children in the household do not have specific allegations associated with them, and
so are not designated as alleged victims.
For the NCANDS Child File category of victims in a substantiated report, Maine combines children
with the state dispositions of indicated and substantiated. The term indicated is used when maltreat-
ment found is low to moderate severity. The term substantiated is used when the maltreatment found
is high severity.

Maine (continued)
Fatalities
Maine has formulated a committee with other child fatality data sources to develop a process to begin
to report child fatality data for the NCANDS Agency File. In coordination with the committee, an
Agile approach is being utilized to develop the additions of functionality to Maine’s SACWIS.
Perpetrators
Relationships of perpetrators to victims are designated in the SACWIS. Perpetrators receive notice
of their rights to appeal any maltreatment finding. Low-to moderate-severity findings (indicated) that
are appealed result in only a desk review. High-severity findings (substantiated) that are appealed can
result in an administrative hearing with due process.
Services
Only services that are paid for by Maine Care through a Child Welfare approved service authorization
are included in the Child File. Our SACWIS currently does not have the ability to identify services
provided to families when those services are paid for by other funding sources or are free. Maine does
not currently have the capability to identify whether those services included in the NCANDS Child
File are specifically preventative services.

Maryland
Contact David Ayer Phone 410–767–8946
Title Deputy Executive Director of Operations Email david.ayer@maryland.gov
Address Maryland Department of Human Resources

311 West Saratoga Street, 5th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21201
General
Maryland has made several improvements to its NCANDS submissions from federal fiscal year
(FFY) 2012 through FFY 2016. At this point, the state anticipates shifting its information technology
resources to replacing its SACWIS, and additional updates to the NCANDS file will not be made until
that work is completed.
Maryland completed the phased-in implementation of its alternative response program in July 2014,
published its final evaluation and has been supporting the implementation over the past two years.
Maryland also began implementation of its IV-E Waiver Demonstration, known as Families Blossom,
during the summer of 2015. Implementation of several evidence-based practices among eight local
jurisdictions to reduce first time and re-entries into foster care services have been implemented over
the last year: SafeCare and Solution-Based Casework (social services models); Incredible Years
and Nurturing (parenting models); Family Functional Therapy, Parent-Child Interaction Therapy,
Cognitive Behavior Therapy (child mental health/behavioral health models); as well as housing and
substance abuse treatment geared for families receiving child welfare services.
Reports
Structured Decision Making (SDM) has improved the consistency of the state’s screening and
decision-making process. The CPS screening process was adjusted in 2013 as part of the implementa-
tion of alternative response in Maryland which is now fully operational across the state since July
2014. The rules and procedures for screening in a report remain the same; however, the CPS supervi-
sor considers specific factors concerning the report in making the assignment to alternative response
(AR) or investigative response (IR).
Maryland’s current CPS response follows the same rules for AR and IR:
n Alleged perpetrators and alleged victims are noted in the record.
n Alleged child victims must be seen within 24 hours when abuse is alleged, and within 5 days when
neglect is alleged.
n Child safety and risk of maltreatment must be assessed.
n The CPS response must be completed within 60 days.
n Additional services may be offered including in-home or out-of-home services.
The key differences between AR and IR are:

n AR targets low risk reports of child neglect and abuse, and although the alleged victims and
alleged perpetrators are noted in the record, the case does not establish findings concerning
maltreatment, nor are the children receiving AR coded as victims. Instead, AR allows local depart-
ments of social services to help Maryland families to access services, supports and other assistance
that will address their concerns. Families screened in for CPS who are eligible but refuse to
participate in AR are reassigned to IR.

Maryland (continued)
n IR targets moderate to high risk reports of child neglect and abuse which results in a finding
concerning maltreatment. This is Maryland’s traditional CPS investigation.
Once assigned to AR or IR, the CPS caseworker begins to meet the family and children. If cir-
cumstances on the ground are found to be quite different than reported, the CPS caseworker, with
supervisor approval, may reassign the CPS case from AR to IR, or vice versa.
Children
The population of children in foster care has been decreasing during the past several years, from
10,330 in 2007 to 4,700 in 2016, a 54 percent decrease.
The NCANDS category of neglect includes medical neglect as state statute and policy do not define
them separately.
Fatalities
Child fatalities where child maltreatment is a factor are usually reported by the local departments of
social services. In addition, the Department of Human Resources (DHR) and local departments also
get information about these fatalities from local interagency fatality review teams, the Department
of Health and Mental Hygiene’s Child Fatality Review Team, and the Office of the Chief Medical
Examiner.
Perpetrators
Maryland does not meet the standard for percent of records containing perpetrator relationship. There
remains a difficulty in relation to this issue because relationship information is not saved for records
that are expunged. Making changes to expungement is complex, and because Maryland is now devot-
ing resources to replacing the current system, it may not be possible to resolve this issue until the new
child welfare replacement system is implemented.
Services
Maryland continues, as part of its family-centered practice, to use family involvement meetings which
are expected to have positive impacts on the safety, permanency, and well-being of children receiving
child welfare services, at various trigger points:
n Removal/considered removal
n Placement change
n Recommendation for permanency plan change
n Youth transition plan
n Voluntary placement
As part of its Families Blossom IV-E Waiver, Maryland is focusing on safely reducing entries and
reentries into foster care, through a combination of targeted family support funds, evidence-based and
promising practices based on local needs assessment, and increasing family preservation services, all
geared to supporting and strengthening families.

Massachusetts
Contact Rosalind Walter Phone 617–748–2219
Title Data Manager Email ros.walter@state.ma.us
Address Massachusetts Department of Children and Families

24 Farnsworth Street
Boston, MA 02210
General
In March 2016, the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF) implemented major
changes to policies and practices focused on ensuring the safety of children in the Commonwealth’s
child welfare system. The new Protective Intake Policy substantially updates and clarifies protocols
for DCF’s screening and investigation of reports of abuse or neglect. The changes also include a
first ever Supervision Policy designed to support DCF front-line workers in decision-making and to
identify circumstances where cases need to be elevated for collaborative higher-level review.
Reports
The Protective Intake Policy creates a comprehensive set of procedures to guide the Department’s
review and investigation of reports of abuse or neglect. Details of the new policy include:
Screening
n Requires non-emergency reports of abuse and neglect to be reviewed and screened in or out in
one business day—reduced from three days previously. Emergency reports continue to require an
immediate screening decision and an investigatory response within 2 hours.
n Introduces screening teams comprised of social workers, supervisors, and managers in all 29 DCF
area offices charged with reviewing new reports of abuse or neglect in open cases, reports associ-
ated to cases with three or more separate incidents of alleged abuse/neglect in the past 12 months,
and other reports indicating reasons for elevated concern.
n Mandates review of all information about the child and caregiver’s prior DCF involvement and
review of any comparable information available from child welfare agencies in other states, includ-
ing cases in which a parent has previously lost custody of a child.
n Requires Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI), Sexual Offender Record Information
(SORI), and National criminal history database checks of parents/caregivers and all household
members over 15 years old.
n Requires requests from law enforcement for information on 911 calls and police responses to the
residence of any child or family involved in a report of abuse or neglect.
Investigative Response
n Creates a single child protection response to all screened-in reports that eliminates the practice of
tiered, or differential response, at screening. All reports that are screened in will now be assigned
for a response by an investigation trained response worker. The revised policy places decision-
making regarding the appropriate level of department intervention after the response––the point at
which the Department has interviewed the child and caregiver involved and substantially investi-
gated the report of abuse or neglect.
n Emergency responses must be completed in 5 working days; Non-Emergency responses must be
completed in 15 workings days.

n As with the prior policy, requires response workers to interview parents, caregivers and other
children in the home as well as the person allegedly responsible for the abuse or neglect.

Massachusetts (continued)
n Enables response workers, for the first time, to search online sources for information relevant to
assessing child safety.
n Includes an assessment of parental capacity by evaluating whether the parent understands how to
keep the child safe, uses appropriate discipline methods and provides for the family’s basic needs,
among other criteria.
n Mandates use of the Department’s Risk Assessment Tool to assess potential future risks to the
child’s safety.
n Response outcomes are mapped to NCANDS outcomes as follows:
• Supported is mapped to substantiated.
• Substantiated Concern is mapped to alternative response (AR) victim.
• Concern (discontinued in February 2016) is mapped to AR nonvictim.
• Low/No Concern (discontinued in February 2016) is mapped to AR nonvictim.
Unsupported is mapped to unsubstantiated at the report level and to unsubstantiated at the allegation
level if the report decision is either supported or unsupported. If the report decision is substantiated
concern, an allegation decision of unsupported is mapped to AR nonvictim.
The number of screening and initial assessment/investigation workers listed is the estimated full-time
equivalents (FTE) based on the number of screenings and initial assessments/investigations com-
pleted during the federal fiscal year (FFY), divided by the monthly workload standard for the activity,
divided by 12. The workload standards are 55 screenings per month and 10 initial assessments/
investigations per month. The number includes both state staff and staff working for the Judge Baker
Guidance Center, Massachusetts’ hotline contractor. The hotline handles child protective service
functions during night and weekend hours when state offices are closed. The number of workers
completing assessments was not reported because assessments are case-management activities rather
than screening, intake, and investigation activities. In FFY 2016, DCF social workers also performed
screening and investigation/initial assessment functions in addition to ongoing casework.
The investigation or initial AR start date is defined as the date the intake is screened in for response
and has not been reported. Massachusetts plans to start reporting response start dates in FFY 2017.
Children
The disposition of an initial AR is reported to NCANDS as alternative response nonvictim. The
NCANDS category of neglect includes medical neglect. Massachusetts does not have a separate
allegation type for medical neglect. Living arrangement data are not collected during investigations
or initial assessments with enough specificity to report except for children who are in placement. Data
on child health and behavior are collected, but it is not mandatory to enter the data during an investi-
gation or initial AR. Data on caregiver health and behavior conditions are not usually collected.
Fatalities
Massachusetts reports child fatalities attributed to maltreatment only after information is received
from the Registry of Vital Records and Statistics (RVRS). RVRS records for cases where child
maltreatment is a suspected factor are not available until the medical examiner’s office determines
that child abuse or neglect was a contributing factor in a child’s death or certifies that it is unable
to determine the manner of death. Information used to determine if the fatality was due to abuse or
neglect also include data compiled by DCF’s Case Investigation Unit and reports of alleged child

Massachusetts (continued)
abuse and neglect filed by the state and regional child fatality review teams convened pursuant to
Massachusetts law and law enforcement. As these data are not available until after the NCANDS
Child File must be transmitted, the state reports a count of child fatalities due to maltreatment in the
NCANDS Agency File. Massachusetts only reports fatalities due to abuse or neglect if an allegation
related to the child’s death is supported.
Services
Data are collected only for those services provided by DCF. DCF may be granted custody of a child
who is never removed from home and placed in substitute care. In most cases when DCF is granted
custody of a child, the child has an appointed representative. Representative data are not always
recorded in FamilyNet.

Michigan
Contact Cynthia Eberhard Phone 517–896–6213
Title Child Welfare Data Manager Email eberhardc@michigan.gov
Address Michigan Department of Health and Human Services

One Michigan Avenue Building
120 N. Washington Square, 3rd Floor
Lansing, MI 48933
Contact Theresa Keyes Phone 517–574–2257
Title Division of Continuous Quality Improvement Manager Email keyest@michigan.gov
Address Michigan Department of Health and Human Services

235 South Grand Ave, Suite 505
Lansing, MI 48933
General
Michigan statute and corresponding child protective services (CPS) policy requires a preponderance
of evidence of abuse or neglect must be determined by an investigator to confirm the abuse or neglect
of a child. A preponderance of evidence is statutorily defined as evidence which is of greater weight
or more convincing than evidence which is offered in opposition to it.
The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) continues its commitment
to improving the state’s performance in outcomes related to child safety. Michigan has identified
systemic factors with a focus on improving data collection and reporting. As a result, Michigan has
improved reporting.
Michigan does not have a differential response or alternative response program.
Reports
Michigan’s Child File data for the incident date and investigation start date may include data that
appears unusable. However, Michigan’s Child Protection Law and corresponding CPS policy allow
for the first face-to-face contact to be conducted by law enforcement up to 24 hours ahead of the
complaint report, based on exigent concerns and to immediately address child safety. These cases
typically require follow-up collaboration between CPS and law enforcement based on the nature of
the case. However, even if a coordinated investigation is not required, the CPS worker is required by
policy to contact the reporter who made the initial face-to-face contact prior to case closure.
Children
Michigan’s Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (MiSACWIS) allows for report-
ing on individual children. The system does not have specific child risk assessment factors. System
enhancements have improved data collection.
Fatalities
Michigan receives reports on child fatalities from several sources including law enforcement agen-
cies, medical examiners/coroners, and child death review teams. Fatality reports are not included
in the states’ NCANDS submission unless a link between the child fatality and maltreatment is
established. This link occasionally is established after the completion of a CPS investigation as it is
not uncommon for additional evidence to be obtained after the CPS investigation has been closed.
In those situations, the MDHHS would take steps to accurately reflect the subsequent findings of the
child death and ensure that it is documented using the most up to date evidence/details.

Michigan (continued)
The MDHHS vital records office provides child fatalities information to the Children’s Services
Agency. The determination of whether maltreatment occurred is dependent upon completion of a CPS
investigation that confirmed abuse or neglect. The data on child fatalities are used by local review
teams to provide recommendations to raise awareness and encourage initiatives to decrease child
fatalities.
In federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016, Michigan was able to report all child fatality data within the Child
File due to system improvements.
Perpetrators
Perpetrators are defined as persons responsible for a child’s health or welfare who have abused or
neglected a child.
Services
Michigan does not currently have the capability to accurately report on prevention services in the
Agency File. Michigan is working to implement changes that will improve reporting on prevention
services.
Michigan does not refer children to the programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, and therefore does not provide Agency File data on these items.

Minnesota
Contact Jean Swanson-Broberg Phone 651–431–4746
Title Systems Analysis Unit Supervisor Email jean.swanson-broberg@state.mn.us
Address Business/ Systems Analysis Supervisor

Minnesota Department of Human Services
PO Box 64239
St Paul, MN 55164–0239
General
Currently, the two response paths are referred to as family assessment response and family investiga-
tive response. The 2015 Legislature removed the statutory preference for family assessment. Reports
alleging substantial child endangerment or sexual abuse (as defined by Minnesota statute) require a
family investigation response. Child protection workers must document the reason(s) for providing a
family investigation response, and may include: statutorily required due to allegations of substantial
child endangerment or sexual abuse, or discretionary use for reasons such as the frequency, similarity,
or recentness of reports about the same family.
In September 2014, Governor Dayton issued an executive order creating a task force to review the
child protection system and recommend improvements to place the protection of children as a top
priority in Minnesota. Creation of the task force was prompted by the case of a Minnesota child who
died after several reports were made to child protection. The Governor’s Task Force on Protection of
Children submitted final recommendations to the Governor and Minnesota Legislature about possible
changes to Minnesota’s child protection response continuum on March 31, 2015. Several recom-
mendations resulted in legislation changes during the 2015 and 2016 legislative sessions. The increase
in number of reports of maltreatment for federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016 may be due, in part, to the
increased attention that the public gave to child maltreatment issues during these past years.
Acceptance into either response path means that a report has been screened in as meeting Minnesota’s
statutory definition of alleged child maltreatment, so allegations accepted for either response are
reported through NCANDS.
Family assessment response deals with the family system in a strengths-based approach and does not
substantiate or make determinations of whether maltreatment occurred; however, a determination
is made as to whether child protective services (CPS) are needed to reduce the risk of any future
maltreatment of the children.
Significant changes to the reporting system to make recording of child maltreatment reports an easier
task for workers, while allowing for more detail, are in design and should be available by mid-2017.
Reports
Data on CPS staff represent the full-time equivalent (FTE) of staff as reported by the local agencies
(counties, combined agencies, and two tribal agencies). In Minnesota, CPS staff are employees of
the local agencies rather than the state. Increased staffing levels are likely due, in part, to additional
funding made available to local agencies late in FFY 2015.
During FFY 2016, the number of reports rose again. This is likely in part a result of heightened
scrutiny of CPS over the past two years.

Minnesota (continued)
Both responses (investigative and family assessment) apply to screened-in reports of alleged child
maltreatment in Minnesota. A separate program, Parent Support Outreach Program (PSOP), offers
early intervention supports and services to families when reports alleging child maltreatment are
screened out or a family is voluntarily referred into the program. The number of children served
under this program is reported under prevention services in the Agency File, and is noted below in the
services section of this commentary.
Approximately 80 percent of screened-out referrals are screened out because the stated concerns do
not meet the definitions of child abuse or neglect under Minnesota law. Other reasons to screen-out
a referral include: children not in the county’s jurisdiction, allegations have already been assessed or
investigated, not enough identifying information was provided, or the incident did not occur within
the family unit or a licensed facility. There is little variation in the proportion screened-out reports for
each of the reasons across years.
Reports alleging substantial child endangerment or sexual abuse must be responded to within 24
hours. Other reports must be responded to within 5 days or 120 hours under Minnesota statutes.
Large changes in the average response time are due to a small number of extremely tardy investiga-
tion start times (time to first contact with alleged victims). There are several reasons for delayed
investigation start times, including coordination with other agencies, such as law enforcement, and
inability to locate families.
Reports with either a determination of maltreatment (substantiation) or a determination of need for

CPS are retained for 10 years. Reports with neither determination (including all family assessment
response reports) are kept for 5 years. Screened-out child maltreatment reports are also now kept for 5
years. Timelines for record retention and destruction are set in Minnesota statutes.
The NCANDS category of “other” report sources includes the state categories of clergy, Department
of Human Services (DHS) birth match, other mandated, and other nonmandated.
Children
The NCANDS category of “other” living arrangement includes the state designation of independent
living and other living arrangement.
Fatalities
Minnesota’s Child Mortality Review Panel is a multidisciplinary team including representatives
from state, local, and private agencies. Disciplines represented include social work, law enforcement,
medical, legal, and university-level educators. The primary source of information on child deaths
resulting from child maltreatment is the local agency CPS staff; however, some reports originate with
law enforcement or coroners/medical examiners. Local agencies also submit results of the required
local child mortality review to the Minnesota DHS Child Mortality Review Team. The Minnesota
DHS Child Mortality Review Team also regularly reviews death certificates filed with the Minnesota
Department of Health (MDH) to ensure that all child deaths are reviewed. The Child Mortality
Review Team directs the local agency to enter child deaths resulting from child maltreatment, but
not previously recorded by CPS, into Minnesota’s Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information
System (SACWIS), in order that complete data are available.

Minnesota (continued)
Occasionally, a child who was a resident of Minnesota is killed in a child abuse incident out of state.
When the Child Mortality Review Team becomes aware of such a situation, information such as a
police report is requested from law enforcement in the other state. The local agency in the Minnesota
county of residence is asked to record the data in Minnesota’s child welfare information system. The
fatality data in this instance is delayed from the time of death, but eventually appears in Minnesota’s
NCANDS mortality counts.
For FFY 2016, the rise in fatalities compared with FFY 2015 is partly due to two incidents that
involved multiple older children involved in murder-suicide situations.
Perpetrators
The NCANDS category of “other” perpetrator relationships includes the state category of other
nonrelative.
Services
Primary prevention services are often provided without reference to individually identified recipients
or their precise ages, so reporting by age is not possible. Clients designated as age unknown are not
included as specifically children or adults.
Data reported in prevention services funded by Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP)
and Promoting Safe and Stable Families (Title IV-B) represents the unduplicated number of children
who received Parent Support Outreach Program supports and services. Services in this program
are provided to children and families who were reported as having an allegation of child maltreat-
ment, but the reported allegation was screened out and did not receive a child protective response.
Community agency referrals and self-referrals are also eligible for the Parent Support Outreach
Program. This program is completely voluntary.
Services offered by local agencies vary greatly in availability between rural and metropolitan areas
of the state. Although all agencies use a statewide service listing, resource development without a
large customer base can be difficult. Cost effectiveness is an issue for providers who must serve large
geographic areas that are sparsely populated.
In Minnesota, the court-appointed representatives for children involved with the court report to the
courts rather than to the local social services agencies. The state Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) program
implemented an automated reporting system in July 2015. For the first time, reporting on an average
number of contacts was possible. The out-of-court contacts reported are based on an annual count.
The number of contacts is averaged across all reporting GALs statewide. It is anticipated that, as the
Guardians Ad Litem gain experience in using the new reporting system, that contact reporting will
become more timely, complete and accurate.
There was an increase in the number of children referred to a community early intervention agency
largely because there was an increase in the number of reports and the number of determined (sub-
stantiated) reports received during FFY 2016.

Mississippi
Contact Shirley Johnson Phone 601–359–4679
Title Continuous Quality Improvement/Data Reporting Email shirley.johnson@mdhs.ms.gov

Unit (CQI/DRU)
Address Mississippi Department of Human Services

750 North State Street
Jackson, MS 39202
General
In July 2016, the Division of Family and Children’s Services was transitioned to a free-standing
agency no longer under the purview of the Mississippi Department of Human Services (MDHS). The
title of the new agency was established as the Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services.
The Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services carries on the responsibilities of the
Division of Family and Children’s Services.
The MDHS works with Social Work p.r.n. to provide services for the MDHS Mississippi Centralized
Intake (MCI), 24-Hour Hotline (1– 800 –222– 8000) as well as the Disaster Preparedness Plan.
The centralized intake service consists of receiving, entering, and screening to the appropriate county
all incoming reports of maltreatment of children and vulnerable adults. The service operates 24-hours
a day, seven-days a week. Intake types are as follows:
n Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation (ANE)
n Information and Referral (I&R)
n Case Management
n Children in Need of Supervision (CHINS)/Unaccompanied Refugee Minors/Voluntary Placement/
Prevention Services
n Resource Inquires
The state utilizes a system of assigning screening levels, which is a form of alternative response.
Level I includes reports that may not be appropriate for Division of Family and Children’s Services
(DFCS) investigation but may require referrals for information or services. Level II requires a
response from a DFCS worker within 72 hours. Level III requires a response from a DFCS worker
within 24 hours. Felonies and reports of children in custody are as assigned a Level III response.
With regard to the services provided as a part of the Disaster Preparedness Plan, in the event of a
disaster, calls are received and information is gathered for DFCS concerning the location and contact
information for resource families and staff. This information is provided to the DFCS designated
office periodically throughout the duration of the disaster and five (5) days immediately following.
Alternate plans of communication with county staff are also provided in the event of office closure.
Reports
The number of investigations has increased due to consistency in the screening process and availabil-
ity of MCI. MCI documents every report alleging neglect and abuse on the front end and provides the
information to the counties for the appropriate response.
A data report tracks the time elapsed between the date an intake was received by MCI and the date
the investigation was initiated by the worker. The data report also tracks the elapsed time between
the date an intake was received by MCI and when the investigation was assigned to a worker. In June

Mississippi (continued)
2013, the data report was modified to only show the date the intake was received and the date the
investigation was initiated. When DFCS receives a report that a child has been abused by a person
responsible for the care and/or support of the child, a determination must be made that the abuse was
not committed or contributed to by a parent, legal guardian, primary caretaker, or relative.
Reports which may be screened out as Level I at intake*:

n Dirty houses or dirty children and no indication of life or health endangering situation. If school/
day care officials report dirty children, they should be requested to talk to parents first. If their
attempts to meet with parents or to correct situation fail, then accept report.
n Children inappropriately dressed and no indication of neglect of a life or health endangering
situation.
n Allegations that speak more to the parent’s behaviors rather than the child’s condition; (e.g., parent
drinks beer or takes drugs; mother has boyfriend) and there is no indication of neglect or life or
health endangering situation. – Exception: All reports of mother/child testing positive for drugs
will be screened in.
n Reports of crowded conditions or too many people living in a home and no indication of neglect or
life or health endangering situation.

n Allegations that parent is not spending TANF, Food Stamps, Child Support or other income on
children, and there is no indication of neglect of basic necessities, or of a life or health endangering
situation. Reporters should be referred to local Economic Assistance office.
n Reports which suggest a need to be addressed by another agency and there is no indication of a life
or health endangering situation. (i.e., lack of school attendance, presence of lice, delinquency, lead/
asbestos poisoning). These reports should be referred to the appropriate agency for handling (i.e.,
school attendance officer, health department).
n Reports on teen pregnancy where there is no suspicion of abuse/neglect.
n Sufficient information is not provided to enable the Department to locate the family, and this
information cannot be secured through other sources after all reasonable efforts have been made.
n Reports of incidents that occurred when a person now eighteen (18) or over was a child. When
adults report that abuse/neglect was perpetrated on them as children, they must have some other
information or reason to believe that children presently cared for by perpetrator are being abused/
neglected.
n Reports on an unborn child and there are no other children at risk.
n Reports of sexual relations involving victims age 16 and over that meet all the criteria below. If any
one criterion does not apply, the report should be considered for investigation:
• Alleged victim was age sixteen (16) or over at the time incident occurred.
• Alleged victim is a normally functioning child.
• Alleged victim, age 16 or over, willfully consented.
• Alleged perpetrator is not a parent, guardian, relative, custodian or person responsible for the
child’s care or support and resides in the child’s home, or an employee of a residential child care
facility licensed by MDHS, and or a person in a position of trust or authority.
• No parental or caretaker neglect is suspected.
*NOTE: Investigations involving children in custody as a victim cannot be screened out for any
reason.

If a report is considered outside the jurisdiction of the DFCS, the report shall be documented and be
referred to law enforcement of proper jurisdiction for investigation. Other services of the Department
may be provided.
n Reports of rape, sexual molestation, or exploitation of any age child that meet all the criteria below.
If either (a) or (b) does not apply, the report should be considered for investigation:
• Alleged perpetrator is not a caretaker, friend of caretaker, relative, other person living in the
home, or employee of a child care facility where the child attends or lives.
• Law Enforcement has been informed of the report.
If law enforcement has not been contacted, County DFCS will immediately make the report to them.
Other services of County DFCS will be offered to law enforcement (i.e., interviewing children) and
the family (i.e., mental health referrals, counseling) as needed.
n Reports of children who have not had their immunizations. Reporter should be referred to the
County Health Department by County DFCS to contact a public health social worker or to the
school attendance officer as appropriate.
n Threats or attempts of suicide by children if there is no suspicion of parental/caretaker abuse or
neglect. If the nature of the report suggests that the child is in immediate danger of self-harm, a
referral should be made immediately to Mental Health and/or Law Enforcement. If reporter is a
professional, they should be requested to refer the family to counseling. If family does not follow
through, then case can be referred to DFCS for neglect. If reporter is a non-professional, the DFCS
should determine if family is seeking counseling. If not, DFCS should investigate for neglect. If
reporter feels suspicion exists just because suicide attempt was made, DFCS will investigate.
n Physical injury committed by one child on another that meet all the following criteria:
• The child is not in a caretaking role over the other child.
• The child victim and perpetrator are not in a residential child caring facility or a home licensed
or approved by DFCS.
Children
There has been an increase in public advertising of reporting methods, supported by CBCAP
(Community Based Child Abuse Prevention) and the Children’s Trust Fund. This public advertising
has been utilized to promote knowledge and understanding to diverse populations in efforts to prevent
child abuse and neglect.
Fatalities
Mississippi previously counted only those child fatalities where the medical examiner or coroner
ruled the manner of death was a homicide. Mississippi counts those child fatalities that were deter-
mined to be the result of abuse or neglect if there was a finding of maltreatment by a DFCS worker.
Other sources that compile and report child fatalities due to abuse and neglect are Serious Incident
Reports (SIRs) and the Child Death Review Panel (CDRP) facilitated by the Mississippi Department
of Health.

Typically, all fatalities are reported in the Child File. Those fatalities not reported in the Child File
are reported in the Agency File. The number of fatalities reported for federal fiscal year (FFY) 2014
is significantly higher than the previous years. Starting in FFY 2014, the agency developed a Special
Investigations Unit (SIU) that is responsible for investigating all reports of child fatalities that meet
criteria for agency investigation. Previously, the investigations were conducted by regular workers
in the field. The development of the SIU has standardized screening and decision-making processes
in fatality investigations. In addition, the investigators that make up the unit are required to have
an advanced level of licensure and experience. Having the dedicated, specialized investigators has
contributed to the increase in the number of fatalities reported with substantiated findings of abuse or
neglect.
In addition, the agency has collaborated with other agencies to continue public awareness campaigns
aimed at death from heat stroke from leaving children in hot cars and death from unsafe sleeping
conditions. From July 2016 to September 2016, the agency ran public service announcements via
television concerning the dangers of leaving your child in a hot car. Although currently anecdotal,
the agency has seen an increase in the number of reports from law enforcement and medical person-
nel when a fatality occurs and it is believed to have been caused, or contributed to by either of these
events. Child fatalities previously labeled by law enforcement or medical professionals as “accidental”
are now more frequently being reported as abuse or neglect, contributing to the agency’s higher
reported numbers.
Perpetrators
For a child to be considered a perpetrator, the child must be in a caretaker role. The MCI staff must
assess the possibility of parental neglect having contributed to one child harming another.
Services
In previous years, children who received prevention services for Promoting Safe and Stable Families
Program (PSSF) during the year were utilized by the Families First Resources Centers with some
of these funds. Currently, Economic Assistance (EA), a division of MDHS, has the taken over
responsibility of Families First Resource Centers. Thus, MDCPS will no longer be able to report on
the utilization of these services moving forward. PSSF funds the Comprehensive Family Support
Services Program (CFFSP), also known as Family Preservation/Family Reunification/Family Support
Services. These services are provided currently through a subgrantee, Mississippi Children’s Home
Services. The goals of the CFSSP are: (1) provide services that will protect children and allow them to
safely remain in their own homes, avoiding out-of-home placement; (2) provide services to safely and
expeditiously reunite children, who are in out-of-home placement, back with their families; and (3)
provide the family support needed to stabilize families.
The NCANDS category of “other” funding sources for children who received prevention services
from the state during the year includes Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Children’s
Trust Fund of Mississippi and the Community Based Child Abuse Prevent Grant (CBCAP).
Prevention services and support are provided via parenting programs, therapy, and other support
services through subgrantees by means of the Children’s Trust Fund and CBCAP monies.
Many substantiated investigations result in services being provided such as family preservation,
protection, prevention or placement. However, a case is not opened on all substantiated investigations.

Missouri
Contact Joni Ralph MSW Phone 660–263–4330 Ext. 274
Title Management Analysis Specialist II Email joni.l.ralph@dss.mo.gov
Address Missouri Department of Social Services

PO Box 857
Moberly, MO 65270
General
The Children’s Division, under the Department of Social Services umbrella, is designated to direct
and supervise the administration of child welfare services. The Children’s Division works in part-
nership with families, communities, the courts and other governmental entities toward ensuring
the safety, permanency, and well-being of Missouri children. The division works with all parties
to safely maintain children in their homes whenever possible and to secure safe, permanent living
arrangements when out-of-home placement is necessary. The Children’s Division administers the
Child Abuse/Neglect Hotline, School Violence Hotline, intensive in-home services, family centered
services, adoption services, independent living, foster care, residential licensing and prevention
services including Early Head Start, Home Visitation Program, Educare, Child Care Subsidy, and
other early childhood and early intervention strategies. The division is responsible for the assessment
and investigation of all reports to the Child Abuse/Neglect Hotline. These services are administered
statewide within a centralized organizational framework.
Within the Department of Social Services, there are four Program Divisions, including the Children’s
Division.
Children’s Division:
n Oversees a 24-hour child abuse and neglect hotline
n Investigates child maltreatment reports
n Provides foster care services for maltreated children
n Provides prevention services to at-risk families
n Provides intensive family supports for at-risk families
n Assists with children finding permanency with adoption and guardianship services
Missouri has 114 counties and the City of St. Louis which are grouped together using pre-established
judicial circuit boundaries. Each circuit has oversight by a Circuit Manager. The state is divided
into four regions with each governed by a Regional Director. In the Jackson County urban area,
the Regional Director and the Circuit Manager position are held by the same person. The St. Louis
Region includes the county and the city of St. Louis. Missouri’s four regions are: St. Louis, Jackson
County, Southern Region (East and West) and the Northern Region (East and West).
Missouri operates under a differential response program where each referral of child abuse and
neglect is screened by the centralized hotline system and assigned to either investigation or family
assessment. Both types are reported to NCANDS.
Investigations are conducted when the acts of the alleged perpetrator, if confirmed, are criminal viola-
tions; or where the action or inaction of the alleged perpetrator may not be criminal, but if continued,
would lead to the removal of the child or the alleged perpetrator from the home. Investigations include
but are not limited to child fatalities, serious physical, medical, or emotional abuse, and serious

Missouri (continued)
neglect where criminal investigations are warranted, and sexual abuse. Law enforcement is notified of
reports classified as investigations to allow for co-investigation.
Family assessment responses (alternative responses) are screened-in reports of suspected maltreat-
ment. Family assessment reports include mild, moderate, or first-time noncriminal reports of physical
abuse or neglect, mild or moderate reports of emotional maltreatment, and educational neglect
reports. These include reports where a law enforcement co-investigation does not appear necessary
to ensure the safety of the child. When a referral is classified as a family assessment, it is assigned
to staff who conducts a thorough family assessment. The main purpose of a family assessment is to
determine the child’s safety and the family’s needs for services. Taking a nonpunitive assessment
approach has created an environment which assists the family and the children’s service worker in
developing a rapport with the family and building on existing family strengths to create a mutually
agreed-upon plan. Law enforcement is generally not involved in family assessments unless a specific
need exists.
In the 2016 Missouri legislative session, House Bill 1877: SAFE CARE Evaluations or Case Reviews
on All Investigations of Children under the Age of Four was passed. This bill requires either an exam-
ination of the child or a review of the child’s case file and photographs by a SAFE-CARE provider
for all investigations involving children under the age of four. Effective August 28, 2016, Children’s
Division must refer children under the age of four with an allegation of abuse or neglect that meets the
definition of an investigation to one of three Child Abuse Resource Centers located in Missouri for
review. Within 24 hours of receiving a referral from Children’s Division, the assigned Child Abuse
Resource Center must respond to Children’s Division with one of the following recommendations:
(1) a direct examination of the child by a SAFE-CARE provider is needed; (2) a direct examination
of the child by a board certified child abuse pediatrician is needed due to complex needs of the child;
(3) a review of the case file and photographs by a SAFE-CARE provider is needed, or 4. If further
evaluation is not necessary. If a SAFE CARE provider makes a diagnosis that a child three years of
age or younger has been subjected to physical abuse, including but not limited to symptoms indicative
of abusive bruising, fractures, burns, abdominal injuries, or head trauma, and reports such diagnosis
to the children’s division, the division shall immediately submit a referral to the juvenile officer. The
referral shall include the division’s recommendations to the juvenile officer regarding the care, safety,
and placement of the child and the reasons for those recommendations. If the SAFE-CARE provider
determines further evaluation is not necessary, Children’s Division assesses the family’s situation and
provides services as needed.
Reports
The state records the date of the first actual face-to-face contact with an alleged victim as the start
date of the investigation. Therefore, the response time indicated is based on the time from the login of
the call to the time of the first actual face-to-face contact with the victim for all report and response
types, recorded in hours. State policy enables, in addition to child protective services (CPS) staff,
multidisciplinary team members to make the initial face-to-face contact for safety assurance. The
multidisciplinary teams include law enforcement, local public school liaisons, juvenile officers,
juvenile court officials, or other service agencies. CPS staff will contact the multidisciplinary person
to help with assuring safety. Once safety is assured, the multidisciplinary person will contact the
assigned worker. The worker is then required to follow-up with the family and sees all household

children within 72 hours. Data provided for federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016 does not include initial
contact with multidisciplinary team members.
Missouri uses Structured Decision Making (SDM) protocols to classify hotline calls and to determine
whether a call should be screened out or assigned. If a call is screened out, all concerns are docu-
mented by the division and the caller is provided with referral contact information when available.
Children
The state counts a child as a victim of abuse or neglect based on a preponderance of evidence
standard or court-adjudicated determination. Children who received an alternative response are not
considered to be victims of abuse or neglect as defined by state statute. Therefore, the rate of prior
victimization, for example, is not comparable to states that define victimization in a different manner,
and may result in a lower rate of victimization than such states. For example, the state measures its
rate of prior victimization by calculating the total number of 2016 substantiated records, and divid-
ing it by the total number of prior substantiated records, not including unsubstantiated or alternate
response records.
The state does not retain the maltreatment type for alternate response reports as they are classified
as alternative response nonvictims. For children in these reports, the maltreatment type is coded to
the NCANDS category of “other” and the maltreatment disposition is assigned the value of the report
disposition.
Fatalities
Missouri statute requires medical examiners or coroners to report all child deaths to the Children’s
Division Central Hotline Unit. Deaths due to alleged abuse or those which are suspicious are accepted
for investigation, and deaths which are nonsuspicious, accidental, natural, or congenital are screened
out as referrals. Missouri does determine substantiated findings when a death is due to neglect as
defined in statute unlike many other states. Therefore, Missouri can thoroughly track and report
fatalities as compared to states without similar statutes. Through Missouri statute, legislation created
the Missouri State Technical Assistance Team (STAT) to review and assist law enforcement and the
Children’s Division’s with severe abuse of children.
While there is not currently an interface between the state’s electronic case management system
and the Bureau of Vital Records statistical database, the STAT has collaborative processes with
the Bureau of Vital Records to routinely compare fatality information. STAT also has the capacity
to make additional reports of deaths to the hotline to ensure all deaths are captured in Missouri’s
electronic case management system (FACES). The standard of proof for determining if child abuse
and neglect was a contributing factor in the child’s death is based on the preponderance of evidence.
Because Missouri’s hotline (CPS) agency is the central recipient for fatality reporting, and because
of the state statute requiring coroners and medical examiners to report all fatalities, Missouri could
appear to have a higher number of fatalities when compared to other states where the CPS agency
is not the central recipient of fatality data. Other states may have to obtain fatality information from
other agencies and thus, have more difficulty with fully reporting fatalities.

Perpetrators
The state retains individual findings for perpetrators associated with individual children. For
NCANDS, the value of the report disposition is equal to the most severe determination of any
perpetrator associated with the report.
Services
Children younger than 3 years are required to be referred to the First Steps program if the child has
been determined abused or neglected by a preponderance of evidence in a child abuse and neglect
investigation. Referrals are made electronically on the First Steps website or by submitting a paper
referral via mail, fax, or email. First Steps reviews the paper or electronic referral and notifies the
primary contact to initiate the intake and evaluation process.
Postinvestigation services are reported for a client who had intensive in-home services or alternative
care opening between the report date and 90 days post disposition date or an active family-centered
services case at the time of the report. Data for child contacts with court-appointed special advocates
(CASA) were provided by Missouri CASA. Data regarding Guardians Ad Litem (GAL) were not
available for FFY 2016. The Children’s Trust Fund provided supplemental data regarding prevention
services.

Montana
Contact Lindsey Krywaruchka Phone 406–841–2457
Title Operations & Fiscal Bureau Chief Email lkrywaruchka@mt.gov
Address Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services

301 S. Park Avenue, 5th Floor
PO Box 8005
Helena, MT 59604
General
Montana does not have a differential response track for investigations. A new computer system is
being developed and should provide enhanced data elements starting in 2019.
Reports
The Child and Family Services Division’s Centralized Intake Bureau screens each referral of child
abuse or neglect to determine if it requires investigation, assistance, or referral to another entity.
Referrals requiring immediate assessment or investigation are immediately telephoned to the field
office. By policy, these Priority 1 reports receive an assessment or investigation within 24 hours. All
other child protective services (CPS) reports that require assessment or investigation are sent to the
field within 24 hours. In general, this has resulted in improved response time. The state does not track
the time from receiving the referral until the beginning of the investigation in hours. Montana state
law requires purging of unfounded cases. In the past, these purged cases have been reported under the
NCANDS disposition of “other.” In federal fiscal year (FFY) 2015, these cases were reported under
the NCANDS disposition of closed-no finding.
Children
The number of children in care has shown an ongoing increase in Montana. There was a 66.8 percent
increase in victims in FFY 2016 that may be attributable to the increase in reports and the increase
in parental drug use. Montana statute does not allow social workers to collect information on the
financial status of a child’s family, so the NCANDS risk factor of financial problem is not reported.
Additionally, the NCANDS risk factor of domestic violence is included within Montana’s definition of
psychological abuse or neglect and physical neglect.
Fatalities
Due to the lack of legal jurisdiction, information in the State Automated Child Welfare Information
System does not include child deaths that occurred in cases investigated by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Tribal Social Services, or Tribal Law Enforcement.
Perpetrators
Unknown perpetrators are assigned a common identifier within the state.
Services
Data for prevention services are collected by state fiscal year.

Nebraska
Contact Greg Brockmeier Phone 402–471–6615
Title IT Business Systems Analyst Email greg.brockmeier@nebraska.gov
Address Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services

1033 O Street, Suite 400
Lincoln, NE 68508
General
During federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016, the state used Structured Decision Making (SDM), an evi-
dence based practice (EBP) as the model used for assessment of reports of maltreatment. This is the
fourth year for which SDM was implemented throughout the entire state. With the implementation of
the SDM intake tool, the state believes consistency will continue to improve and screening decisions
will be better supported.
In FFY 2016, Nebraska made improvements to its reporting of information to NCANDS related to
post-response services, removals and discharges, alternative response disposition dates, adoption and
foster care services, public assistance services, and reporting unknown or out of state counties.
Reports
All referrals are received at a toll-free, 24-hour, centralized hotline. The intake workers at the hotline
along with their supervisors use SDM to determine whether the referral meets criteria for intervention
and the response time for intervention. If the call meets the criteria for intervention, it is screened in
and assigned to a worker to conduct an initial assessment, which includes using SDM safety assess-
ments, safety plans (when needed), and risk or prevention assessments. At the conclusion of the initial
assessment, the workers use the SDM results to determine if services are needed.
In FFY 2015, the state of Nebraska began a pilot project to implement an alternative response to
reports accepted for assessment. This pilot initially consisted of 5 counties in the state, but expanded
to include 57 counties by the end of FFY 2016. This pilot project is being evaluated by the University
of Nebraska and will require legislative approval to continue beyond July 1, 2017.
In FFY 2016, Nebraska allocated 182 FTE positions for intake/investigation/assessment which include
33 positions for intake. Nebraska does not utilize the FTE formula to calculate this number based
on the number of hours paid in the year for an employee. Instead, it is based on the staff allocated.
This count no longer includes supervisors. Prior years’ counts reported to NCANDS did include
supervisors.
Children
In FFY 2016, Nebraska continued to see a decrease in the number of unique child victims. The
number of unique child victims fell from 3,940 in FFY 2014 to 3,483 in FFY 2015 and to 2,783 in
FFY 2016 a decrease of 29 percent in 2 years. There are several factors that influenced this drop in
child victims including policy changes which provided more oversight to the disposition of reports of
maltreatment, and the alternative response pilot project expanded which resulted in fewer substanti-
ated child victims.
Fatalities
The state reports child fatalities in both the Child File and the Agency File. The FFY 2016 Child File
includes seven children who died as a result of maltreatment with no children reported in the Agency

Nebraska (continued)
File. Child fatalities awaiting final disposition in Nebraska’s child welfare information system who are
not reported in this year’s Child or Agency Files will be included in a future Child File that corre-
sponds with the annual report submission when the disposition is completed.
The state continues to work closely with the state’s Child and Maternal Death Review Team
(CMDRT) to identify child fatalities that are the result of maltreatment, but are not included in the
child welfare system. When a child fatality is not included in the Child File, the state determines if
the child fatality should be included in the Agency File. The CMDRT’s official report and final results
are usually 2–3 years after the submissions of the NCANDS Child and Agency Files. The state will
resubmit the Agency File for previous years when there is a difference in the count than was origi-
nally reported as a result of the CMDRT final report.
Perpetrators
Nebraska collects information on perpetrators entered into the child welfare information system
including the relationship to the child (a required data field) and demographic information. The rela-
tionship may be “other” or unknown if the relationship is not provided by the report source. In FFY
2015, Nebraska’s enacted a new state statute which precludes any person under 12 years of age from
being listed as a substantiated perpetrator in the child welfare information system. The maltreatment
type will be listed, but there will be no finding entered to indicate if the maltreatment was substanti-
ated or unfounded.
In FFY 2016, Nebraska saw a decrease in the number of perpetrators of 19.2 percent from FFY 2015.
There are several factors that influenced this drop in perpetrators including policy changes which
provided more oversight to the disposition of reports of maltreatment that could be substantiated, and
the alternative response pilot project expanded, which resulted in fewer substantiated perpetrators.
Services
In FFY 2016, Nebraska made improvements to its service array for Family Preservation Services
and began separating out reports of foster care services from adoption services. These changes have
affected reporting for the FFY 2016 submission. For a period in FFY 2016, Family Preservation
Services were not offered as the service array was changed and improvements made.
Nebraska refers all children who are under 3 years of age and a substantiated victim of maltreatment
to the Early Childhood Development Network. Nebraska automated its referral system to its Early
Childhood Development Network to automatically notify the network of children younger than 3
years who are victims of maltreatment.
The state believes that most of the services provided to families can be accomplished during the
assessment phase, which is between the report date and final disposition. In many cases, these are
the only services required to keep the child or victim safe. These services are not included in the
NCANDS Child File; only the services that extend beyond the disposition are included.

Nevada
Contact Alexia Benshoof Phone 775–687–9013
Title Management Analyst Email abenshoof@dcfs.nv.gov
Address Nevada Department of Health and Human Services

4126 Technology Way, 3rd Floor
Carson City, NV 89706
General
Within the state, child protective services (CPS) functions in three regional service regions: Clark
County, Washoe County, and Rural counties. All three service regions use a single data system under
the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) —also known as Unified
Nevada Information Technology for Youth (UNITY).
Nevada’s alternative response program is designated differential response (DR) and is implemented
in all regions. Families referred under this policy are the subject of reports of child abuse and/or
neglect which have been determined by the agency as likely to benefit from voluntary early interven-
tion through assessment of their unique strengths, risks, and individual needs, rather than the more
intrusive approach of investigation. The DR program has served a cumulative total of more than
10,254 families since 2007 with approximately 1,436 referrals received throughout the state from CPS
in state fiscal year (SFY) 2016 (07/01/15–06/30/16).
All three child welfare service regions in Nevada are in the process of implementing the Safety
Assessment and Family Evaluation (SAFE) model. While the primary focus in all three agencies has
been on intake and assessment, or front-end services, the plan is to continue the rollout of the model
to expand back-end services such as implementing conditions for return and the protective capacity of
family assessment. This model has changed the state’s way of assessing child abuse and neglect. It has
enhanced the state’s ability to identify appropriate services to reduce safety issues in the children’s
home of origin. Additionally, this model has unified the state’s CPS process and standards regarding
investigation of maltreatment.
The SAFE model supports the transfer of learning and ongoing assessment of safety throughout the
life of the case. The model emphasizes the differences between identification of present and impend-
ing danger, assessment of how deficient caregiver protective capacities contribute to the existence of
safety threats and safety planning/management services, assessment of motivational readiness, and
utilization of the Stages of Change theory as a way of understanding and intervening with families.
Reports
For federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016, there was an overall decrease of 1.9 percent in reports of abuse or
neglect as compared to the previous year (from 15,900 in FFY 2015 to 15,592 in FFY 2016).
Nevada has varying priority response timeframes for investigation of a report of child abuse or
neglect, according to the age of the child and the severity of the allegations. Other reports are defined
as follows: (1) information only, where there is insufficient information about the family or maltreat-
ment of the child, or there are no allegations of child abuse/neglect; (2) information and referral, when
an individual asks about services and there are no allegations of child abuse or neglect; and (3) DR,
when a report is made, and there are no allegations of maltreatment, and/or the allegations do not rise
to the level of an investigation, but the family could benefit from community services.

Nevada (continued)
Children
For FFY 2016, there was decrease in the number of children reported as possible abuse or neglect
victims as compared to the previous year Further, the number of substantiated victims decreased
compared to the previous year.
Fatalities
Fatalities identified in the SACWIS as maltreatment deaths are reported in the Child File. Deaths
not included in the Child File, for which substantiated maltreatment was a contributing factor, are
included in the Agency File as an unduplicated count. Reported fatalities can include deaths that
occurred in prior periods for which the determination was completed in the next reporting period.
The total number of NCANDS reported fatalities has remained the same since the last reporting
period (13 in FFY 2015 and 13 in FFY 2016).
Nevada utilizes a variety of sources when compiling reports and data about child fatalities resulting
from maltreatment. Any instance of a child suffering a fatality or near-fatality, who previously had
contact with or was in the custody of a child welfare agency, is subject to an internal case review.
Data are extracted from the case review reports and used for local, state, and federal reporting as well
as to support prevention messaging. Additionally, Nevada has both state and local child death review
(CDR) teams which review deaths of children (17 years or younger). The purpose of the Nevada
CDR process is public awareness and prevention, enabling many agencies and jurisdictions to work
together to gain a better understanding of child deaths.
Perpetrators
All perpetrator data are reported in accordance with instructions outlined in the NCANDS Child File
mapping forms.
Services
Many of the services provided are handled through outside providers. Information on services
received by families is reported through various programs. Services provided in conjunction with
the new safety model are documented in the system, but these data are not readily reportable. The
Child File contains some of the services from the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information
System, known as UNITY, and the state is investigating steps to bring more of that information into
the NCANDS report.
Nevada follows its statewide policy (#0502 CAPTA-IDEA Part C), which states: “Child welfare
agencies will refer children under the age of three (3) who are involved in a substantiated case of child
abuse or neglect, or who have a positive drug screen at birth, to Early Intervention Services within
two (2) working days of identifying the child(ren) pursuant to CAPTA Section 106 (b)(2)(A)(xxi) and
IDEA Part C of 2004.”

New Hampshire
Contact Lorraine Ellis Phone 603–271–0837
Title Systems Analyst Email lorraine.ellis@dhhs.nh.gov
Address New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families

129 Pleasant Street
Concord, NH 03301
General
New Hampshire does not have differential response in our child protective system.
Reports
New Hampshire has a 60-day timeframe to complete a protective assessment. This enables the
assigned child protective services (CPS) worker to do a comprehensive assessment of the alleged
maltreatment, family strengths and needs and as needed develop a plan with the family to assure
child/youth safety. This could include facilitated referrals to community based services such as a
family resource center, local mental health or other local supports.
New Hampshire uses a tiered system of required response time, ranging from 24 to 72 hours, depend-
ing on level of risk at the time of the referral.
The number of staff responsible for CPS functions includes assessment workers and workers who
specialize in investigation of allegations of abuse and neglect in out-of-home placements. The number
of screening and intake workers includes intake workers. The numbers are not duplicated.
New Hampshire has experienced a significant increase in the number of reports with substance use/
abuse identified as risk factor due to increased use of opioid drugs by parents and parents’ functional
capacity being detrimentally impacted by substance use disorder. As a result, the number of founded
reports and the number of children receiving services, including foster care services, has also
increased.
While the number of reports has increased, the agency has experienced a decrease in the agency’s
average face-to-face response due to insufficient staff resources. Contributions to this insufficiency
include: increases in staff turnover, staff on extended leave, including family leave through the
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the need to assure newly hired staff are fully trained
prior to conducting protective assessments as primary workers. To assure child safety when timely
face-to-face response cannot occur staff are in direct contact with collaterals (i.e. school, physician,
reporter) to ascertain the immediate safety of the child, and face-to- face interviews follow when it
is determined the child is conditionally safe. Although this increases the official response time, staff
have taken timely action on assessments.
The following New Hampshire values are mapped to the NCANDS category of “other” report source:
n Private Agency
n Private Individual
n City, Town, County
n Clergy
n Community I&R
n Other Community Agency
n Camp

New Hampshire (continued)
n Fire Department Staff

n Landlord
n Other state
n Utility Company
n Other
For the NCANDS element report disposition, New Hampshire does not use the following values, per
Division policy:
n Indicated or reason to suspect
n Alternative response victim
n Alternative response nonvictim
n Unsubstantiated due to intentionally false reporting
New Hampshire does not capture data for the following elements:
n Living Arrangement at time of Incident
n Incident Date
Fatalities
Data for the Agency File are obtained from the New Hampshire Department of Justice as well as the
New Hampshire SACWIS.
There is no use of “other” with regard to fatalities. The state reports fatalities (unduplicated) in both
the Agency and Child Files.
Services
When an abuse/neglect assessment results in determination of founded, in-home services can be
offered to maintain the child safely in the home. If the child is in danger and this cannot be mitigated
with in-home services, New Hampshire Division of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) will
remove the child and immediately begin the provision of services to achieve the primary goal of
reunification.
The NCANDS category of “other” services includes the state category ISO in-home, an Individual
Service Option that provides comprehensive services for children/youth with significant challenges,
which may be medical, physical, behavioral or psychological. The service, therefore, fits into several
different service categories, but not precisely into any one category.
New Hampshire is only able to report those services that are paid for directly by the child protection
agency. Any services that are paid for by Medicaid or the family’s own health insurance are not
reported for:
n Counseling Services
n Health-Related and Home Health Services
n Substance Abuse Services
New Hampshire does not provide or collect data on the following services, as defined by NCANDS:
n Case Management Services
n Employment Services

New Hampshire (continued)
n Family Planning Services

n Home Based Services
n Information and Referral Services
n Housing Services
n Legal Services
n Respite Care Services
The Agency File children and families who received prevention services from the state during
the year under the Child Abuse and Neglect State Grant are not reporting a count as the expendi-
tures of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) funds were removed from the
Comprehensive Family Support Services (CFSS) program to be utilized in other areas of Division
programming.
Children and families reported in the Agency File as receiving prevention services from the state
during the year under the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program and Social Services Block
Grant (SSBG) are funded from the Child Abuse State Grant, PSSFP and SSBG. These funds are
combined and awarded to agencies that provide prevention services in NH. The numbers of children
and families are unduplicated, and represent the number of children and families served as a percent-
age of the total funding.
The New Hampshire SACWIS does not currently record referrals made to IDEA agencies in a way
that can be queried. We must therefore rely on a report from another state agency which aggregates
activities from of the area agencies that do the evaluations. Those agencies only maintain records for
the children who completed an intake and/or evaluation. The report does not include any referrals for
children whose parents did not respond to an invitation to have their child evaluated.

New Jersey
Contact Nicole Ruiz Phone 609–888–7336
Title Program Specialist Email nicole.ruiz@dcf.state.nj.us
Address New Jersey Department of Children and Families

50 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
General
Since the implementation of the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS),
each NCANDS Child File data element is reported from the system.
The state has been making continuous enhancements toward improving the quality of NCANDS data.
Reports
The state Department of Children and Families (DCF), Division of Child Protection and Permanency
(CP&P) formerly the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) investigates all reports of child
abuse and neglect.
The state system allows for linking multiple child protective services (CPS) reports to a single
investigation.
The state has the capability to record the time and date of the initial face-to-face contact made to
begin the investigation.
Structured Decision Making assessment tools (SDM), including safety and risk assessments, are
incorporated within the investigation screens in the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information
System (SACWIS). These tools are required to be completed in the system prior to documenting and
approving the investigation disposition.
On April 1, 2013, new regulations took effect modifying the Department of Children and Families’
dispositions following child abuse and neglect investigations. Previously, DCF had two disposition
categories, unfounded and substantiated.
The new system of investigative is based on a four-tier system of findings:

n Substantiated—A preponderance of the evidence establishes that a child is an abused or neglected
child as defined by statute; either the investigation indicates the existence of any of the absolute
conditions or substantiation is warranted based on consideration of the aggravating and mitigating
factors.
n Established—A preponderance of the evidence establishes that a child is an abused or neglected
child as defined by statute, but the act or acts committed or omitted do not warrant a finding of
substantiation upon consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors.
n Not Established—There is not a preponderance of the evidence that the child is an abused or
neglected child as defined by statute, but evidence indicates that the child was harmed or placed
at-risk of harm.
n Unfounded—There is not a preponderance of the evidence indicating that a child is an abused or
neglected child as defined by statute, and the evidence indicates that a child was not harmed or
placed at-risk of harm.

New Jersey (continued)
This new system allows for more specific investigation disposition categories to more appropriately
reflect the particular circumstances present in each investigation, allowing for better partnership with
families and better outcomes for children. This change also provides fairness in the operation of the
Child Abuse Record Information system and allows DCF to better protect children by requiring the
maintenance of all records in which children were harmed or exposed to risk of harm, even if the
statutory definition of child abuse or neglect could not be met.
As indicated by definition, the finding of established is based on a preponderance of evidence estab-

lishing that the child is a victim of maltreatment. Therefore, reports with an established finding are
categorized as substantiated in NCANDS.
The state data shows both a decrease in the number of reports and the number of substantiated
victims resulting in 10.3 percent of reports substantiated in federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016 compared
to 11.8 percent of reports substantiated in FFY 2015. While this indicates a decrease in the number of
substantiated victims, it is consistent with prior years. NJ has seen some variation in the number of
children substantiated in the past three years due to the implementation of the four-tier finding system
in 2013.
Children
Children with allegations of maltreatment are designated as alleged victims in the CPS report and are
included in the Child File.
The state SACWIS allows for reporting more than one race for a child. Race, Hispanic/Latino origin,
and ethnicity are each collected in separate fields.
Fatalities
Child fatalities are reported to the NJ Department of Children and Families Fatality and Executive
Review Unit by many different sources including law enforcement agencies, medical personnel, fam-
ily members, schools, offices of medical examiners and occasionally child death review teams. The
CP&P Assistant Commissioner makes a determination as to whether the child fatality was a result of
child maltreatment.
The state NCANDS liaison consults with the Fatality and Executive Review Unit Coordinator and the
Child Protection and Permanency (CP&P) Assistant Commissioner to ensure that all child maltreat-
ment fatalities are reported in the state NCANDS files.
The state SACWIS (New Jersey Spirit) is the primary source of reporting child fatalities in the
NCANDS Child File. Specifically, child maltreatment deaths reported in the NCANDS Child File
field Maltreatment Death are from data collected and recorded by investigators in the investigation
and person management screens in the SACWIS.
Other child maltreatment fatalities not reported in the Child File due to data anomalies, but which are
designated child maltreatment fatalities by the Fatality and Executive Review Unit under the Child
Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), are reported in the NCANDS Agency File under child
maltreatment fatalities not reported in the Child File.

New Jersey (continued)
New Jersey has maintained a stable annual child fatality rate for the last eight years. Fluctuations
in the number of fatalities from year to year are likely due to random case-level variation and are
monitored closely.
Perpetrators
New Jersey DCF’s Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit continues with the case practice initiative
implemented in 2012 to conference investigations with a representative from the Office of the Deputy
Attorney General prior to rendering a finding. This practice is resulting in the strengthening of the
investigation assessment.
Services
The state SACWIS reports those services specifically designated as Family preservation services,
family support services, and foster care services as postinvestigation services in the Child File.
The Child Abuse and Neglect state Grant is one funding source for the Child Protection and
Substance Abuse Initiative (CPSAI). We are able to report that with state Grant funding, CPSAI
served 2,185 individuals.
The state is able to report the number of children eligible for a referral to Early Intervention Services
and the number of children referred in FFY 2016. Compliance with this federal requirement is closely
monitored by CP&P, and New Jersey has reached an 89 percent referral rate for FFY 2016.

New Mexico
Contact Doreen Chavez Phone 505–412–9868
Title SACWIS/AFCARS/NCANDS/FACTS Program Email Doreen.Chavez@state.nm.us

Manager
Address New Mexico Children, Youth & Families Department

300 San Mateo Blvd NE Suite 500
Albuquerque, NM 87108
General
New Mexico does not have two types of responses to screened-in referrals. All screened-in reports
are investigated.
Reports
New Mexico has reported the number of children identified as alleged victims in screened-out reports
for the second time in federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016; the first time New Mexico reported alleged
victims in screened-out reports was in FFY 2015. The number of reports investigated in FFY 2016
decreased from FFY 2015.
The New Mexico definition for investigation initiation differs from the NCANDS definition in
requiring face-to-face contact with all alleged victims included in a report, rather than with individual
alleged victim for whom the referral was made. New Mexico also measures investigation initiation
from the point at which the report is accepted by Statewide Central Intake, rather than the point at
which the report is received. Accepted reports designated as emergency status require a response time
of less than 3 hours per state policy. Priority 1 reports require a 24-hour response time, and Priority 2
reports require a five-calendar day response time.
New Mexico does not currently report incident date. The alleged date of maltreatment (incident date)
is complicated by the fact that the reporter may know only a general maltreatment timeframe, or the
alleged maltreatment reported may be chronic in nature. Because of the known inherent inaccura-
cies in the reporting of chronic maltreatment and potential inaccuracies in the reporting of a general
maltreatment-timeframe for a specific maltreatment event, New Mexico does not plan to modify the
state’s data collection system to capture incident information and will continue to use the current
reporting approach.
Children
The number of substantiated victims decreased in FFY 2016 from the previous year. In FFYs 2014–
2015, New Mexico experienced large backlogs of pending investigations and addressed this by assign-
ing experienced staff in central office and less-populous counties to assist in a “blitz” to close cases.
Because NCANDS assigns the submission year based on case disposition date, the years in which
these closure blitzes occurred contained artificially high numbers of records. There was no blitz in
FFY 2016, so the number of closed cases during the year more accurately reflects the actual number
of reports accepted during the year. In FFY 2015, the number increased. New Mexico is aware that
staff are substantiating at a higher rate and theorizes that this increase may be due to more child
maltreatment occurring and/or to inconsistencies in substantiation practice. New Mexico established
a team to evaluate these inconsistences and developed strategies to address inconsistencies in practice
around substantiation. New Mexico has developed and implemented a statewide training component
regarding substantiation versus unsubstantiation. The state is not able to report on the following

New Mexico (continued)
child data fields that are not captured in the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System
(SACWIS):
n Child living arrangement
n Intellectual disability-caregiver
n Learning disability-caregiver
n Visually or hearing impaired-caregiver
Fatalities
The number of child fatalities decreased from FFY 2015 to FFY 2016. The state obtains a list of child
deaths from the Office of the Medical Investigator (OMI) to compare OMI and Children Youth and
Families Department (CYFD) data in the category of homicides. A follow-up, in-person review of
OMI files is also conducted for any child not known to the state agency who is identified as a victim
of homicide to determine the identity and relationship of the alleged perpetrator, if known. Only chil-
dren known to have died from maltreatment by a parent or primary caregiver who are not included in
the Child File are included in the Agency File.
Perpetrators
New Mexico attributes its low numbers of maltreatment in foster care to an improved training model
implemented in 2012 that is described as a more realistic portrayal of the foster parent role. Placement
staff are also available around the clock to respond to foster care incident reports which can address
foster parent issues before situations escalate to the report level. Family support services for foster
parents and foster parent support groups also are available in some areas of the state.
The state does not report information on residential staff perpetrators, as any report of alleged abuse
and neglect that occurs at a residential facility is screened out. CPS does not have jurisdiction via
state law to investigate allegations of abuse and neglect in facilities; however, the following is done
with the screened-out reports of child maltreatment in facilities:
n Any screened-out report is cross-reported to law enforcement having jurisdiction over the incident.
n Such reports are cross-reported to licensing and certification, the entity in New Mexico with
administrative oversight of residential facilities.

n Upon request from law enforcement, an investigation worker may act in consultation with law
enforcement in conducting investigations of child abuse and neglect in schools and facilities and
may assist in the interview process.
n If an alleged maltreatment incident involves a child in the child welfare agency’s custody, then a
safety assessment is conducted for that child to ensure that the placement is safe.
The NCANDS category of “other” perpetrator relationship includes:

n Sibling’s guardian
n Nonrelative
n Foster sibling
n Reference person
n Conservator
n Caregiver
n Surrogate parent
n Perpetrator is a foster parent and the child is not under the care, placement, or supervision of the
child welfare agency

New Mexico (continued)
Services
Postinvestigation services are reported for any child or family involved in a child welfare agency report
that has an identified service documented in the SACWIS as: (1) a service delivered, (2) a payment for
service delivered, or (3) a component of a service plan. Services must fall within the NCANDS date
parameters to be reported. The state is not able to report on the following services data fields:
n Home-based services
n Information and referral services
n Respite care services
n Other services
n Special services-juvenile delinquent
Whenever there is a child younger than 3 years in a family involved in a substantiated investigation,
policy states that the investigation worker refers that child to the Family Infant Toddler (FIT) Program
for a diagnostic assessment. The referral occurs within 2 days of the substantiation. The date of this
referral is documented in the state SACWIS prior to approval of the investigation results. The worker
also notifies the family of the referral and provides them with a copy of the FIT fact sheet.
If an alleged maltreatment incident involves a child in the child welfare agency’s custody, then a
safety assessment is conducted for that child to ensure that the placement is safe.
The NCANDS category of “other” perpetrator relationship includes:

n sibling’s guardian
n nonrelative
n foster sibling
n reference person
n conservator
n caregiver
n surrogate parent
n perpetrator is a foster parent and the child is not under the care, placement, or supervision of the
child welfare agency
Services
Postinvestigation services are reported for any child or family involved in a child welfare agency report
that has an identified service documented in the SACWIS as: 1) a service delivered, 2) a payment for
service delivered, or 3) a component of a service plan. Services must fall within the NCANDS date
parameters to be reported. The state is not able to report on the following services data fields:
n home-based services
n information and referral services
n respite care services
n other services
n special services-juvenile delinquent
Whenever there is a child younger than 3 years in a family involved in a substantiated investigation,
policy states that the investigation worker refers that child to the Family Infant Toddler (FIT) Program
for a diagnostic assessment. The referral occurs within 2 days of the substantiation. The date of this
referral is documented in the state SACWIS prior to approval of the investigation results. The worker
also notifies the family of the referral and provides them with a copy of the FIT fact sheet.
New York
Contact Vajeera Dorabawila, Ph.D. Phone 518–402–7386
Title Assistant Director Email vajeera.dorabawila@ocfs.ny.gov
Address New York State Office of Children and Family Services

52 Washington St, Room 323 North
Rensselaer, New York 12144
General
The state has continued to expand the number of local districts of social services using the alternative
response (AR), known as family assessment response. New York’s AR program has been imple-
mented by a total of 32 local districts of social services. Ten of the local districts have since suspended
implementation. However, several are in the planning stages to start or re-start.
A new state agency, the Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs (Justice
Center) was established via legislation and became operational on June 30, 2013. The purpose of
this agency is to transform how the state protects over one million New Yorkers in state operated,
certified or licensed facilities and programs. Investigative responsibility for all institutional abuse or
neglect (IAB) allegations occurring on or after June 30, 2013, was transferred from the New York
State Office of Children and Family Services to the new Justice Center. Given that these post June
30, 2013 investigations are captured in a newly created Justice Center database, extensive work had
to be completed to map those data elements to NCANDS definitions. Given the extensive work, these
data were not included in federal fiscal year (FFY) 2013 and 2014 submissions and were included in
the FFY 2015 and 2016 submission. The Justice Center is working on improving some of the details
associated with the data provided.
Reports
New York state does not collect information about calls not registered as reports.
Children
Most reporting to the NCANDS maltreatment type of “other” can be accounted for by the state
maltreatment type parent’s drug/alcohol use.
The state is not able to report the NCANDS child risk factor fields at this time.
Not all children reported in the Child File have Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and reporting
System (AFCARS) IDs because the state uses different data systems with different child identifiers
for child protective services (CPS) and child welfare. The child welfare identifier (AFCARS ID) is
only assigned if the child is receiving child welfare services and is inconsistently updated in the child
protective system, which is the source of the NCANDS submission.
State statute and policy allow acceptance and investigation/assessment of child protective reports
concerning certain youth over the age of 21.
Fatalities
State practice allows for multiple reports of child fatalities for the same child. The NCANDS Online
Validation tool considers these duplicates and removes them from the Child File. These fatalities are
reported in the Agency File.

New York (continued)
By state statute, all child fatalities due to suspected abuse and neglect must be reported by mandated
reporters, including but not limited to law enforcement, medical examiners, coroners, medical profes-
sionals, and hospital staff, to the Statewide Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment (SCR).
No other sources or agencies are used to compile and report child fatalities due to suspected child
abuse or maltreatment. There was a decrease in fatalities from 96 to 86 from FFY 2015 to FFY 2016.
Perpetrators
Except for the domestic violence risk factor, the state is not able to report the NCANDS caretaker risk
factors at this time.
Services
The state is not able to report the NCANDS services fields at this time. Title XX funds are not used
for providing child prevention services in this state.

North Carolina
Contact Heather Bohanan Phone 919–527–6264
Title Supervisor Email heather.bohanan@dhhs.nc.gov
Address North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services

820 S. Boylan Ave
Raleigh, NC 27603
Reports
North Carolina maintains a statewide differential response to allegations of child maltreatment.
Following the receipt of the reports of alleged child maltreatment, these allegations are screened by
the local child welfare agency against North Carolina general statute using a structured intake rubric
to determine if the allegations meet the statutory definition of abuse, neglect, or dependency. Once
reports are accepted by the local child welfare agency because the allegations, (if found to be true),
would meet statutory definitions, the report is then assigned to one of the two tracks: either investiga-
tive assessment or a family assessment. Accepted reports of child abuse (and certain types of special
neglect cases such as conflicts of interest, abandonment, or alleged neglect of a foster child) are
mandatorily assigned as investigative assessments, while accepted reports of child neglect or depen-
dency may be assigned as either family or investigative assessment at the county’s discretion. North
Carolina, defines a dependent child as one who has no parent or caregiver or if the parent or caregiver
is unable to provide for the care or supervision of the child.
Family assessments place an emphasis on globally assessing the underlying issues of maltreatment
rather than focusing solely on determining whether the incident of maltreatment occurred. In a family
assessment, the family is engaged using family-centered principles of partnership throughout the
entire process. Case decision findings at the conclusion of a family assessment do not indicate whether
a report was substantiated (founded) or not. Rather a determination of the level of services a family
may need is made. A perpetrator is not listed in the state’s Central Registry for family assessments.
Children
North Carolina reports one type of maltreatment per child.
Legislation requires that for all allegations of abuse, neglect, or dependency, all minors living in
the home must be treated as alleged victims. The NCANDS category of “other” maltreatment type
includes the state categories of: dependency, and “encouraging, directing, or approving delinquent
acts involving moral turpitude committed by a juvenile.”
Fatalities
Data about child fatalities are only reported via the Chief Medical Examiner’s Office. Due to the pro-
cess in which this information is reported, the most recent data available is for 2015. During calendar
year (CY) 2015 there were 32 deaths classified as homicide by parent or caregiver.
Perpetrators
North Carolina associates one perpetrator per victim.

North Dakota
Contact Marlys Baker Phone 701–328–1853
Title Child Protection Services Administrator Email mbaker@nd.gov
Address North Dakota Department of Human Services

600 East Boulevard Avenue
Bismarck, North Dakota 58505
General
There have not been recent changes in state policies, programs or procedures that may affect the
federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016 submission to NCANDS.
North Dakota does not currently have a two-pathway system.
Reports
North Dakota encompasses four American Indian Reservations. These reservations are sovereign
nations, each of whom maintains the reservation’s own child welfare system. Because of this, North
Dakota’s NCANDS data does not include child abuse and neglect data, or data on child deaths from
abuse or neglect or near deaths from abuse or neglect which occurred in a tribal jurisdiction.
North Dakota does not report the number of screened-out reports. Under North Dakota law, all
reports of suspected child abuse and neglect must be accepted. North Dakota has adopted an adminis-
trative assessment process to correctly triage reports received. Data regarding the number of children
included in reports that are administratively assessed is not collected. An administrative assessment
is defined as the process of documenting reports of suspected child abuse or neglect that do not meet
the criteria for a child protection services (CPS) assessment. Under this definition, reports can be
administratively assessed when the concerns in the report clearly fall outside of the state child protec-
tion law. Such circumstances include:
n The report does not contain a credible reason for suspecting the child has been abused or
neglected.
n The report does not contain sufficient information to identify or locate the child.
n There is reason to believe the reporter is willfully making a false report (these reports are referred
to the county prosecutor).

n The concern in the report has been addressed in a prior assessment.
n The concerns are being addressed through county case management or a Department of Human
Services therapist.
n Reports of pregnant women using controlled substances or abusing alcohol (when there are no
other children reported as abused or neglected) are also included in the category of administrative
assessments, as state law doesn’t allow for a decision of “services required” (substantiation) in the
absence of a live birth.
Assessments that are already initiated when information indicates the report falls outside of the
child abuse and neglect law may be terminated in progress. Reports may also be referred to another
jurisdiction when the children of the report are not physically present in the county receiving the
report (these reports are referred to another jurisdiction, either county, tribal, or state, where the
children are present or believed to be present). Reports involving a Native American child living
on an Indian Reservation are referred to tribal child welfare systems or to the Bureau of Indian
Affairs child welfare office. Reports concerning sexual abuse or physical abuse by someone who is
not a person responsible for the child’s welfare (noncaregiver) are referred to law enforcement. The

North Dakota (continued)
number of administrative assessments or referrals in federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016 is 7,516. This total
breaks down to 2,823 administrative assessments, 1,719 administrative referrals, 2,854 terminated in
progress, and 120 pregnant woman assessments.
North Dakota’s data for response time with respect to the initial assessment as defined in the Agency
File does not present a true picture of practice. Data mapping and calculating the response time, both
in the Agency File and in the Child File, has proved to be quite challenging as there is a significant
divergence between the state’s administrative rule and policies and the definitions required for
NCANDS reporting. In the North Dakota data system, there is only a single code allowed to indicate
initiation of an assessment. State administrative rule allows initiation of an assessment to be done by
completing a check for records of past involvement, by contact with the subject of a report or with
a collateral contact. In contradiction to the federal definition, the administrative rule does not list
contact with a victim as an initiation activity. When a subsequent contact is made with a victim, there
is not a separate code within the data system to indicate this action as initiation. Therefore, many
assessments initiated under the state administrative rule do not meet the initiation definition in the
Child File or Agency File.
Another complicating factor is that system codes for contacts with children are often indicated as
worker/child or worker/family, which may or may not indicate contact with a victim. This is due
to multiple programs using case activity codes, but does not allow specific NCANDS mapping for
victim contacts. Additionally, the initial face-to-face contact with a victim for purposes of a safety
assessment is allowed, by state policy, to be conducted by specific professional partners who have
authority to provide immediate protection for the child (law enforcement, medical personnel, juvenile
court staff, or military family advocacy staff) in addition to a child welfare worker, in order to assure
safety in a rural environment where minimal staffing, weather and distance can delay a worker’s
ability to respond quickly. Given this policy, face-to-face contact by a partner may occur previous
to the report received date/time. For example, law enforcement is called to a home in the evening for
a welfare check and determines that the children are not in immediate danger, so does not remove,
but does follow up with a written report the following day. Face-to-face contact with the victim has
occurred by someone with authority to protect the child, but occurs prior to the report date/time, by
someone other than the child welfare worker, but does not count under the definitions in the Child
File or Agency File. State policy also specifies that the response time may vary by the category of the
report. Response times may vary from 24 hours before or after a report for the most serious category
to three days before or after a report for moderate risk reports, to as much as 14 days before or after
the report for low risk reports. Given this possible variation, these timeframes also do not meet the
NCANDS definitions.
When North Dakota’s response time is calculated according to the state’s policy and administrative
rule, the state’s response time is 155.8098 hours. (Note: 92 records were deleted from this calculation
due to a missing date or contacts outside of the allowable time range.)
Because North Dakota is a county administered system, the state can only determine the numbers
of full-time equivalents (FTEs) employed by a county for certain job titles, such as social worker
or family service specialist. These FTEs may be employed in various county programs for varying
portions of their FTE. For example, a county employee may be a full FTE, but a quarter of the time

will be CPS functions, a quarter of the time may be foster care, a quarter of the time may be in adult
services, and a quarter of the time may be in in-home case management. The state has no independent
way to determine what portions of the FTE are dedicated to CPS functions. Additionally, intake and
report analysis functions are the responsibility of each county office. North Dakota does not have a
centralized intake hotline. Additionally, counties may assign non-child welfare staff, such as clerical
staff or economic assistance staff, to conduct CPS intake functions. These personnel are not included
in the counts below.
To glean the required information for NCANDS reporting, the state has initiated a survey of the
counties in which the counties are asked to report the number of FTEs in their agency dedicated to
CPS functions.
An electronic survey was prepared in two sections, using Survey Monkey as the vehicle for collecting
the data. This survey was transmitted via email to directors of all county social service agencies in
the state. The survey was administered in two parts. The first part was completed by agency directors,
listing the staff and percentage of FTE for each child welfare staff person for each function requested.
Information on caseload or work load requirements, including the average number, were then calcu-
lated using the data provided in the survey and the caseload numbers extracted from the statewide
data system for those county agencies which responded to the survey. The survey was administered
in June 2016. The response rate for the director’s portion of the survey was approximately 70 percent,
with 37 of 53 counties reporting. Directors reported a total of 192 employees, including supervisors,
responsible for intake and assessment. These were then reported as a corresponding portion of an
FTE, resulting in a total of 96.9 FTEs. Based on the survey, there were 15 FTEs responsible for CPS
Intake, 67 FTEs responsible for assessment functions, and 15 responsible for supervisory functions.
The second portion of the survey was forwarded to the workers by the director with a request for each
worker listed by the director to complete the education/training and demographic portion of the sur-
vey. The worker demographic and training portion of the survey was completed by 84 of the workers/
supervisors, for a response rate of approximately 44 percent. The worker response rate in 2015 was
56 percent and in 2016 is 44 percent. This represents a decrease by 21 percent in 2016. The results of
the worker demographic portion of the report are included in the state’s Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act (CAPTA) report.
Note: The two largest counties in the state, each representing a substantial portion of the total work
force, did not participate in the survey. As a result, the above data may not be a true representation of
the state’s workforce.
Children
The number of victims increased from FFY 2015 to FFY 2016. This increase is consistent with the
amount of increase between FFY 2014 and FFY 2015, and is believed to be related to an increase in

the overall child population combined with increased caregiver drug and alcohol abuse, based on the
numbers of children entering foster care for the primary reason of caregiver substance abuse.
Child and caregiver risk factor reporting has been strengthened during this reporting period through
data system changes. However, due to the changes being implemented after this reporting period, risk
factor data for this reporting period is limited. Reporting is expected to improve when the revised risk
factor changes are mapped for NCANDS reporting.
Fatalities
North Dakota’s number of child fatalities did not increase or decrease by more than 10.
All fatalities were reported in the Child File.
The North Dakota Department of Human Services, Children and Family Services Division is the
agency responsible for coordination of the statewide Child Fatality Review Panel as well as serving
as the state’s child welfare agency. The Administrator of Child Protection Services serves as the
Presiding Officer of the Child Fatality Review Panel. This dual role provides for close coordination
between these two processes and aides in the identification of child fatalities due to child abuse and
neglect as a sub-category of child fatalities from all causes.
The North Dakota Child Fatality Review Panel coordinates with the North Dakota Department of
Health Vital Records Division to receive death certificates for all children, ages 0–18 years, who
receive a death certificate issued in the state. These death certificates are screened against the child
welfare database, and any child who has current or prior CPS involvement as well as any child who it
can be determined is in the custody of the Department of Human Services, county social services, or
the Division of Juvenile Services at the time of the death is selected for in-depth review by the Child
Fatality Review Panel, along with any child whose manner of death as listed on the death certificate
as an accident, homicide, suicide or as undetermined. Any child for whom the manner of death is
listed on the death certificate as natural, but whose death is identified as sudden, unexpected or
unexplained, is also selected for in-depth review.
As part of these in-depth reviews, records are requested from any agency identified in the record as
having involvement with the child in the recent period prior to death, including law enforcement,
medical facilities, CPS, the County Coroner and the State Medical Examiner’s Office for each death.
Additionally, the State Medical Examiner’s Office forensic pathologists participate in conducting the
reviews. Data from each review are collected and maintained in a separate database. It is this database
that is correlated with data extracted from the child welfare database for NCANDS reporting. Even
though NCANDS data do not contain child welfare data concerning children in tribal jurisdiction, the
state is confident that all deaths in the state from all causes are identified, reviewed and reported.
Perpetrators
North Dakota reports unknown perpetrators under the category of unknown within the state’s data
system (FRAME). Perpetrator IDs for unknown perpetrators are unique to each assessment.
Institutional Child Protection Services are addressed in a separate section of the state statute. Under
state statute, institutional child abuse or neglect means situations of known or suspected child abuse

or neglect when the institution responsible for the child’s welfare is a residential child care facility,
a treatment or care center for individuals with intellectual disabilities, a public or private residential
educational facility, a maternity home, or any residential facility owned or managed by the state or
a political subdivision of the state. An individual working as facility staff is not held culpable within
Institutional Child Protection Services; rather, the facility itself is considered to be a ‘subject’ (perpe-
trator) of the report. Assessments of institutional child abuse and neglect are assessed at the state-level
by regional staff, rather than at the county level as are CPS reports that are noninstitutional. All
reports of institutional child abuse and neglect are reviewed by a multidisciplinary Child Protection
Team on a quarterly basis. Determinations of institutional child abuse and neglect are made by team
consensus. A determination of indicated means that a child was abused or neglected by the facility. A
decision of not indicated means that a child was not abused or neglected by the facility.
There were 157 reports of institutional child abuse or neglect in FFY 2016 resulting in 42 completed
full assessments. Of these full assessments, 26 had a finding of not indicated and 16 had a finding of
indicated. There were 62 assessments terminated in progress. There were 16 reports of institutional
child abuse and neglect that were administratively assessed and 4 that were administratively referred
(see above under Reports for definitions of administrative assessments and referrals). There remained
34 assessments open at the time of this report.
There was a 51 percent increase in reports of institutional child abuse and neglect this FFY. Possible
explanations for this increase include an increase in the number of youth placed in facilities and
increased training efforts for education and training for facility staff.
Training opportunities for facility include online mandated reporter training and state and regional
trainings on how to recognize child abuse and neglect in a residential setting. Despite the increased
number of reports, however, the number of full assessments completed has remained consistent. The
number of assessments terminated in progress also increased by 88 percent.
There were 104 reports of institutional child abuse and neglect in FFY 2015 resulting in 43 completed
full assessments. Of these full assessments, 33 had a finding of not indicated and 10 had a finding of
indicated. There were 33 assessments terminated in progress. There were 4 reports of institutional
child abuse and neglect that were administratively assessed and 4 that were administratively referred
(see above under ‘reports’ for definitions of administrative assessments and referrals). There remained
20 assessments open at the time of this report.
Services
Agency File Data components regarding children eligible and referred to Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) services include only children less than 3 years of age.

Ohio
Contact David Thomas Phone 614–752–1222
Title Program Administrator Email david.thomas@jfs.ohio.gov
Address Ohio Department of Job and Family Services

PO Box 183204
Columbus, OH 43218–3204
General
Ohio’s federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016 data is the first submission to NCANDS in which Ohio has
data from a fully implemented statewide DR system. Ohio implements a differential response (DR)
system for screened in reports of alleged child abuse and/or neglect. The DR system is comprised
of a traditional response (TR) pathway and an alternative response (AR) pathway. Children who are
subjects of reports assigned to the AR pathway are mapped to NCANDS as AR nonvictim and have
a disposition of AR. Children who are alleged child victims of reports assigned to the TR pathway
receive one of the following dispositions:
n Unsubstantiated—The assessment/ investigation determined no occurrence of child abuse or
neglect.
n Substantiated—There is an admission of child abuse or neglect by the person(s) responsible, an
adjudication of child abuse or neglect, or other forms of confirmation deemed valid by the public
children services agency (PCSA).
n Indicated—There is circumstantial or other isolated indicators of child abuse or neglect lack-
ing confirmation; or a determination by the caseworker that the child may have been abused or
neglected based upon completion of an assessment/investigation.
Reports
There was a 2.0 percent overall increase of the total number of screened in reports in FFY 2016 from
FFY 2015. Additionally, in FFY 2016 there was an increase of alternative response nonvictim disposi-
tion from FFY 2015. Ohio had completed statewide implementation of a DR system in September
2014. FFY 2016 is the first reporting period Ohio has had DR implemented statewide.
Children
Requirements to record the race/ethnicity of children in Statewide Automated Child Welfare
Information System (SACWIS) were in effect for the FFY 2015 and remained in effect for the FFY
2016 reporting year. There was a decrease in the number of records where race and ethnicity were
reported as unknown. Child victims as reported by Ohio are children who have received a disposition
of substantiated or indicated in the traditional response pathway.
Fatalities
Child maltreatment deaths reported in Ohio’s NCANDS submission are compiled from the data main-
tained in the SACWIS. The SACWIS data contain information only on those children whose deaths
were reported to and investigated by a public children services agency (PCSA) or children involved
in a child protective services (CPS) report who died during the assessment or investigation period. As
a county administered CPS system, Ohio PCSAs have discretion in which referrals are accepted for
assessment or investigation. In some cases, the PCSA will not investigate a child fatality report unless
there are other children in the home who may be at risk of harm or require services. Referrals of child
deaths due to suspected maltreatment not accepted by the PCSA are investigated by law enforcement.

Ohio (continued)
There were multiple child fatalities not included in the child FFY 2015 reporting year. This was a
result of multiple reports screened in and substantiated addressing the fatality incident. These were
then reported in the Agency File. During FFY 2016 reporting year, one child was not included in
the Child File as there were two reports substantiated regarding the fatality incident. This child is
reported in the Agency File for the FFY 2016 reporting period.
Perpetrators
The NCANDS category of “other” perpetrator relationship includes the state categories of nonrelated
(NR) child and NR adult. These are catch-all categories that can be used for any individual who is
not a family member. Guidance was provided to agencies to select the most appropriate relationship
code (e.g., neighbor) instead of using the nonrelated categories during the FFY 2016 reporting period.
The data identifies that there has been a slight decrease in the use of “other” perpetrator for FFY 2016
when compared to the data from FFY 2015 reporting period. The “other” perpetrator relationship
identifies 16 percent of alleged perpetrators and is the second-most identified value for Ohio; parent is
the most identified value for perpetrator relationship.
Ohio has improved in reporting race of alleged perpetrators. The use of “unable to determine” has
reduced 19.6 percent from FFY 2015. As a result, the race categories have increased respectively from
FFY 2015. The only exception is native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, which remained the same
from FFY 2015. The requirement for selection of the race field in SACWIS was the catalyst for this
improvement. Ohio SACWIS requires race to be selected in to select a race value.
Services
Ohio is continually working to improve the recording of services data in the SACWIS. Federal grant
funds are used for state level program development and support to county agencies providing direct
services to children and families.
For FFY 2016, Ohio’s reporting on prevention services funded through CBCAP was found to include
public awareness campaign recipients, and therefore removed from reporting in this report. The
state provides the following information on the 11,491 children and 11,302 families receiving direct
services under this funding source. The overall number of children served represents a decrease from
FFY 2015. This decrease can be attributed to several factors:
n Increased technical assistance and training to grantees concerning evaluation and reporting
requirements.
n Increased investment in programs containing more intensive services resulting in fewer children
served.
n During the FFY 2016 period, the Ohio Children’s Trust Fund (OCTF) invested in a strategic plan-
ning process and needs assessments under a new regional model of funding that utilized funds that
otherwise would have been directed towards child abuse prevention programming and services.
n Over 30% of local grantees utilized little to none of their available OCTF April Child Abuse and
Neglect Prevention Month funds.
Ohio policy requires all children ages 0–3 with a substantiated report to be referred to Help Me Grow/
Early Intervention. Ohio has established a referral form that is used exclusively by child protective
services agencies to refer families and children to Help Me Grow. Ohio’s Help Me Grow/Early
Intervention program is supervised by the Ohio Department of Health and is administered through

Ohio (continued)
county agencies. This is the number of unique children ages 0–3 with a substantiated report disposi-
tion. Although the state does not report AR victims, the data include children and siblings served
through both the alternative response pathway and the traditional response pathway. All children
determined eligible were referred to Help Me Grow. Ohio’s SACWIS generates the Help Me Grow
referral form.

Oklahoma
Contact Elizabeth Roberts Phone 405–522–3715
Title Programs Manager II Email e.roberts@okdhs.org
Address Oklahoma Department of Human Services

P.O. Box 25352
Oklahoma City, OK 73125
General
The Pinnacle Plan details a five-year plan, beginning with state fiscal year (SFY) 2013, to address
15 performance areas identified in the agreement with plaintiffs in the class action litigation DG
vs. Yarbrough, Case No. 08-CV-074. In September 2016, the co-neutrals (a group of three child
welfare experts monitoring progress) agreed to extend the timeline to fully implement the agency’s
remover efforts. Public reporting related to specific performance areas can be accessed through the
Department of Human Services (DHS) website.
Oklahoma has continued with the commitment and emphasis on trauma-informed care as a priority
in the state. Because of leadership buy-in and through the Oklahoma Trauma Assessment and Service
Center Collaborative (OK-TASCC) grant and other initiatives, Oklahoma is a leader in trauma-
informed efforts in terms of knowledge, training, policy, and practice changes. The OK-TASCC is
in its fifth year of a five-year demonstration grant through the Administration on Children, Youth
and Families, Children’s Bureau, “Initiative to Improve Access to Needs-Driven, Evidence-Based/
Evidence-informed Mental and Behavioral Health Services in Child Welfare.” The goal of this
project is to improve the social and emotional well-being and restore the developmentally appropriate
functioning of children and youth in the child welfare system that have mental and behavioral health
needs through helping the Oklahoma Department of Human Services-Child Welfare Services develop
and implement comprehensive, integrated and reliable continuum of screening, assessment, and
aligned service delivery.
The grant project aims to advance trauma-informed care efforts and be mutually supportive with
initiatives in the Pinnacle Plan through the implementation of universal screening and functional
assessment of behavioral health needs, the use of functional outcome oriented case planning to ensure
those needs are met, and early access to evidence-based/evidence-informed service array that is
aligned and responsive to the screening and functional assessment data. As of June 2016, the Child
Behavioral Health Screener (CBHS) with child welfare (CW) staff was implemented statewide and
expanded to include Family Centered Services, adoptions and post-adoptions programs. The CBHS,
tailored to different developmental levels, is a brief measure designed to screen monthly for presence
of behavioral and trauma-related symptoms that may be negatively impacting child functioning in
youth ages birth through seventeen years old. The monthly administration is aimed at improving the
timely identification of behavioral health needs of children within the Oklahoma child welfare system
(CWS), improve quality of communication between child welfare staff and resource parents, and
sustainably imbed this practice approach into CWS work processes. At the end of 2016, there were
over 30,000 screeners administered on 11,830 children with the largest percentage of children having
between 3 and 11 screeners completed. This will help in the utility of the CBHS for CW as well as
achieving improved outcomes for children. The OK-TASCC team will continue efforts to sustain this
new practice through a trauma-informed care framework and in collaboration with external parents
and systems, including courts, schools, foster parents, and resource/service providers.

Oklahoma (continued)
Oklahoma is currently participating in a pilot project involving Eckerd’s Rapid Safety Feedback
process. The process uses a combination of predictive analytics in combination with Continuous
Quality Improvement (CQI) to provide support and monitoring of cases/intakes where a child has
been evaluated by the predictive model to be high risk of death or near death. The pilot is currently
implemented and ongoing in Oklahoma County. The project involves a partnership between Eckerd,
Oklahoma Child Welfare, Mindshare, and Casey Family Programs. The Rapid Safety Feedback pilot
is an effort to use advanced data analytics to identify the children who may be at-risk of serious
injury or even fatality, and to use that information as part of a collaborative decision-making support
system to intervene in a timely way to affect a much better outcome. The technology is a means of
sorting the data, highlighting correlations, and identifying heightened probability. This identification
engages a review process for safety analysis and staffing which is inclusive of frontline field staff
and supervisory staff and CQI staff. A total of 112 families have been engaged through this review
process between December 2015 and September 30, 2016.
Reports
The Oklahoma Department of Human Services has a statewide, centralized hotline to receive child
abuse and neglect reports. An allegation of child abuse or neglect reported in any manner to a DHS
county office is immediately referred to the Hotline.
Each report received at the Hotline is screened to determine whether the allegations meet the defini-
tion of child abuse or neglect and are within the scope of child protective services (CPS). DHS
responds to an accepted report of child abuse or neglect by initiating an assessment of the family
or an investigation of the report in accordance with priority guidelines. The primary purpose of the
assessment or investigation is the protection of the child. For assessments or investigations, DHS
gives special consideration to the risks of any minor child, including a child with a disability, who is
vulnerable due to his or her inability to communicate effectively about abuse, neglect, or any safety
threat.
A priority 1 report indicates the child is in present danger at-risk of serious harm or injury.
Allegations of abuse and neglect may be severe and conditions extreme. The situation is responded
to immediately, the same day the report is received. Priority 2 is assigned to all other reports. The
response time is established based on the vulnerability and risk of harm to the child. Priority 2
assessments or investigations are initiated within two to 10 calendar days from the date the report is
accepted for assessment or investigation.
An assessment is conducted when a report meets the abuse or neglect guidelines but does not allege a
serious and immediate safety threat to a child. The assessment uses the same comprehensive review
to address allegations, identifies behaviors and conditions in the home that lead to risk factors, and
evaluates the protective capacities of the person responsible for the child’s health, safety, or welfare
to address the safety needs of each child in the family. Assessments do not have findings. When a
child is determined unsafe in the initial stages of the assessment, and the family’s circumstances or
the person responsible for the child’s (PRFC) behavior poses a risk to the child, an investigation is
immediately initiated by the child welfare specialist. The family is told an investigation rather than an
assessment is necessary, and the Child welfare specialist immediately follows investigation protocol.

Reports that are appropriate for screening out and are not accepted for assessment or investigation are
reports:
n That clearly fall outside the definitions of abuse and neglect per OAC 340:75-3-120, including
minor injury to a child 10 years of age and older who has no significant child abuse and neglect
history or history of neglect that would be harmful to a young or disabled child, but poses less of a
threat to a child 10 years of age and older
n Concerning a victim 18 years of age or older, unless the victim is in voluntary placement with DHS
n Where there is insufficient information to locate the family and child
n Where there is an indication that the family needs assistance from a social service agency but there
is no indication of child abuse or neglect

n That indicate a child 6 years of age or older is spanked on the buttocks by a foster or trial adoptive
parent with no unreasonable force used or injuries observed per OAC 340:75-3-410
n That indicate the alleged perpetrator of child abuse or neglect is not a PRFC, there is no indication
the PRFC failed to protect the child, and the report is referred to local law enforcement
Children
Legislation passed in federal fiscal year (FFY) 2013 directed that an investigation, rather than an
assessment, be completed whenever the department determines that a child is drug-endangered,
which is defined as a child who is at-risk of suffering physical, psychological or sexual harm as a
result of the use, possession, distribution, manufacture or cultivation of controlled substances. The
term also includes newborns that test positive for a controlled dangerous substance, except for those
substances administered under the care of a physician. The number of investigations in which a
newborn tested positive at birth for a substance increased from 375 in SFY 2014 to 416 in SFY 2015,
approximately 11 percent. In SFY 2016, this number increased to 517, a 24 percent increase. Of these
517 newborns that tested positive at birth, 99 experienced some signs of withdrawal.
Legislation effective in November of 2015 added sexual exploitation to the types of referrals received
by the child abuse and neglect hotline, modified the definition of sexual exploitation, and added a
definition of “trafficking in persons” to Oklahoma Title 10A, the Children and Juvenile Code. New
law also went into effect requiring that DHS, in consultation with state and local law enforcement,
juvenile justice systems, health care providers, education agencies, and organizations with experi-
ence in dealing with at-risk children and youth, establish policies and procedures including relevant
training for caseworkers to identify, document in agency records, and determine appropriate services
for children and youth at-risk of sex trafficking. Child welfare policy has been updated to include a
specialized protocol for child abuse and neglect reports involving child victims of human trafficking.
In the last year, CPS Programs have worked with domestic violence partners to ensure consistent
training was provided to all child welfare staff. Trainings were scheduled in each of the regions, and
domestic violence advocates, as well as CPS Programs and Permanency Planning (PP), are in the
process of facilitating those trainings across the state. The purpose of the training is to ensure staff
are aware of the dynamics of domestic violence, as well as what the expected response to these spe-
cific cases should be by PP and CPS. CPS Programs have updated our training curriculum to match
current policy and protocols related to domestic violence, educational neglect, substance exposed
newborns, and the overall safety decision making process.

Fatalities
Oklahoma investigates all reports of child death and near death that are alleged to be the result of
abuse or neglect. A final determination of death due or near-death due to abuse or neglect is not
made until a report is received from the office of the medical examiner, which may extend beyond
a 12-month period. Fatalities are not reported to NCANDS until the investigation and state office
program review are completed.
The Oklahoma Child Death Review Board conducts a review of every child death and near death in
Oklahoma (both attended and unattended). State office CPS staff work closely with the Child Death
Review Board and are participating members. Legislation was introduced in FFY 2014 to allow
the any city-county Fetal Infant Mortality Review board of the Health Department to have limited
information concerning investigations of fetal and infant mortalities (effective 11/01/2014).
All child fatalities and near fatalities with findings in the State Automated Child Welfare System
are reported in the Child File. As previously noted, the Child Death Review Board receives reports
of all attended and unattended child fatalities and provides this information to the state office CPS
programs staff.
Effective November 1, 2012, Oklahoma statute directs that all child deaths and near deaths in which
the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (OKDHS) has reasonable cause to suspect are the
result of abuse or neglect must be reported to the Governor’s office within 24 hours. This same statute
requires OKDHS to publicly report all deaths and near deaths that are the result of abuse or neglect.
This statute requires a series of reports that go to the Governor’s office and certain members of the
legislative body, beginning with the first report within 24 hours and ending with the public reporting.
In FFY 2014, this statute was amended to streamline and improve the process.
Increased communication with the Office of the Medical Examiner and the addition to the OKDHS
staff responsible for final determination and documentation on all child deaths and near deaths has
resulted in more timely documentation of child deaths.
Perpetrators
Oklahoma began reporting perpetrator relationships of group home or residential facility staff in the
FFY 2013 Child File.
A prior perpetrator is defined as a perpetrator of a substantiated maltreatment within the reporting

year who has also been a perpetrator in a substantiated maltreatment anytime back to 1995, the year
of implementation of the State Automated Child Welfare Information System.
Oklahoma reports all unknown perpetrators.
Services
Oklahoma is participating in a Title IV-E Waiver Demonstration Project. While DHS services
children in the home utilizing the evidence-based SafeCare model through a program entitled
Comprehensive Home Based Services (CHBS), it is only appropriate for families with children are at
moderate risk of removal. The DHS waiver demonstration project targets those families for whom the
removal risk is higher and therefore not appropriate for CHBS. The flexible use of IV-E funds permits

DHS to shift funding to services, which safely prevent removals, allowing more children to remain
in the home. This demonstration project has implemented the provision of Intensive Safety Services
(ISS).
ISS is an intensive family preservation program that provides services in the home three to five times
a week, eight to 10 hours per week for a duration of four to six weeks for families with children ages
0–12. These services are provided by a master’s level licensed behavioral health professional, or one
under supervision for licensure, who is trained in Motivational Interviewing (MI) and Cognitive
Behavioral Therapy (CBT). The ISS contracted worker connects the family to appropriate community
resources, based on their needs, during that four-to six-week period for continued treatment. The ISS
worker ensures that there are no barriers to accessing said services and, with MI, ensures that the
families are engaged and stay engaged with the services.
The first ISS case began in late July 2015 in Region 3, Oklahoma County. ISS delivered services to
170 children as of June 2016. Although 45 of those children had to be subsequently taken into DHS
custody, 125 remain in their parents’ custody due to the creation and implementation of the ISS
system of care under DHS. These cases will be reviewed after the completion of both ISS and CHBS
and beyond to determine if these children remain out of custody and if there have been subsequent
referrals on these children and families. Since July 1, 2016, the state has begun or continues to provide
services to 108 more children as of January 3, 2017.
Postinvestigation services are services that are provided during the investigation and continue after
the investigation, or services that begin within 90 days of closure of the investigation. In cases where
the family would benefit from services and the child can be maintained safely in the home, DHS can
refer to community services or refer the case to CHBS through a DHS contracted provider. If referred
to community services, the DHS investigation can be closed, and DHS will determine within 60 days
whether the family has accessed the recommended services and if the child remains safe. If the family
is referred to CHBS, DHS will open a Family Centered Services case and follow the family for up to
six months.

Oregon
Contact Anna Cox Phone 503–945–6680
Title Data Collection and Reporting Manager Email anna.cox@state.or.us
Address Oregon Department of Human Services

500 Summer Street NE E72
Salem, OR 97301
General
OR-Kids, Oregon’s Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) collects data
at the child level on nonvictims. The federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016 is Oregon’s fourth Child File that
shows child-level data for all children associated with screened-in referrals.
Oregon began a phased implementation of a two-track response system called differential response
(DR) in May of 2014. As of September 30, 2016, there were nine of Oregon’s 36 counties using the
system. The two types of response tracks within the DR system are traditional response (TR) and
alternative response (AR). Data are reported in the NCANDS Child File for all screened-in child
protective services (CPS) reports, regardless of differential response track. Alternative response track
CPS reports will have report and maltreatment dispositions of alternative response nonvictim as the
response option.
All report, child, and victim counts are significantly higher due to an increased focus on completion
of assessments in FFY 2016.
For the FFY 2016 NCANDS file, certain improvements have been made. Specifically, coding changes
were made to correctly report the number of victims eligible for referral under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act in the Agency File. In addition, coding was added to populate fields for
families who received prevention services. Future changes will enhance reporting of services in the
Child File.
Oregon will continue to work on improving the extraction procedures, as needed, to accurately report
all NCANDS data.
Reports
The number of reports has increased significantly between FFY 2015 and FFY 2016 due to an
increased focus on completion of assessments.
The investigation start date is the date of actual child or parental contact.
In Oregon, a report is screened out when:

n No report of child abuse/neglect has been made, but the information indicates there is risk present
in the family, but no safety threat.

n A report of child abuse/neglect is determined to be third party child abuse, but the alleged perpe-
trator does not have access to the child, and the parent or caregiver is willing and able to protect
the child.
n An expectant mother reports that conditions or circumstances would endanger the child when
born.
n The child protection screener is unable to identify the family.

Oregon (continued)
Children
The number of children who were subjects of an investigation has increased significantly between
FFY 2015 and FFY 2016 due to an increased focus on completion of assessments.
FFY 2016 is Oregon’s fourth Child File that shows child-level data for all children associated with
screened-in referrals rather than just for children with substantiated maltreatment.
The NCANDS category “other” maltreatment type includes the state designation threat of harm.
Fatalities
The number of fatalities decreased from FFY 2015 to FFY 2016. There is no systemic cause for this
change.
The state reports fatalities in the Agency file. These cases are dependent upon medical examiner
report findings, law enforcement findings, and completed CPS assessments, and the fatality cannot
be reported as being due to child abuse/neglect until these findings are final. Reported fatalities due
to child abuse/neglect for FFY 2016 represent deaths due to child abuse/neglect for cases where the
findings were final as of January 25, 2017.
Perpetrators
Unique perpetrators between reports are assigned unique identification numbers.
Services
The state’s SACWIS system does not collect data on prevention services; therefore, it does not
currently have NCANDS child-level reporting on these services. Further, the NCANDS Child File
information on services is not complete at this time.

Pennsylvania
Contact Sharon Mathna Phone 717–214–5982
Title Business Analyst Email smathna@pa.gov
Address Pennsylvania Department of Human Services

625 Forester Street
Harrisburg, PA 17120
General
Upon receipt of a report of suspected child abuse, the department shall immediately transmit an
oral notice or a notice by electronic technologies to the appropriate county agency that a report of
suspected child abuse has been received and the substance of the report. If the report received does
not suggest suspected child abuse, but does suggest a need for social services or other services or
assessment, the department shall transmit the information to the county agency for appropriate
action. These allegations or concerns are referred to as General Protective Services (GPS) and are
not classified as child abuse in Pennsylvania. The information shall not be considered a child abuse
report unless the agency to which the information was referred has reasonable cause to suspect after
assessment that abuse occurred. If the agency has reasonable cause to suspect that abuse occurred, the
agency shall notify the department, and the initial report shall be upgraded to a child abuse report.
In 2014, Pennsylvania enacted a comprehensive package of child welfare legislative reforms which
enhanced our ability to better protect children. The legislation amended the definitions of child abuse
and perpetrator and provided for the establishment of a Statewide Database for tracking child abuse and
neglect data. To address these changes, Pennsylvania implemented a new Child Welfare Information
Solution (CWIS) on December 27, 2014 and the amended definitions of child abuse and perpetrator took
effect December 31, 2014. The 2015 NCANDS Child File incorporated three months of data collected
under the previous statute and nine months of data under the new statute. The federal fiscal year (FFY)
2016 NCANDS Child File is the first file to collect all 12 months of data under the new statute. The
changes now require Pennsylvania to collect data on GPS reports, Pennsylvania’s alternative response,
and Pennsylvania plans on reporting on that data in the future. Definitions outlined in this commentary
reflect the amended statute that took effect December 31, 2014.
Pennsylvania defines child abuse as intentionally, knowingly or recklessly doing any of the following:
n Causing bodily injury to a child through any recent act or failure to act.
n Fabricating, feigning, or intentionally exaggerating or inducing a medical symptom or disease
which results in a potentially harmful medical evaluation or treatment to the child through any
recent act.
n Causing or substantially contributing to serious mental injury to a child through any act or failure
to act, or a series of such acts or failures to act.

n Causing sexual abuse or exploitation of a child through any act or failure to act.
n Creating a reasonable likelihood of bodily injury to a child through any recent act or failure to act.
n Creating a likelihood of sexual abuse or exploitation of a child through any recent act or failure to act.
n Causing serious physical neglect of a child.
n Engaging in any of the following recent acts:
• Kicking, biting, throwing, burning, stabbing, or cutting a child in a manner that endangers the
child.
• Unreasonably restraining or confining a child, based on consideration of the method, location,
or the duration of the restraint or confinement.

• Forcefully shaking a child under one year of age.

Pennsylvania (continued)
• Forcefully slapping or otherwise striking a child under one year of age.

• Interfering with the breathing of a child.
• Causing a child to be present at a location while a violation of 18 Pa.C.S. §7508.2 (relating to
operation of methamphetamine laboratory) is occurring, provided that the violation is being

investigated by law enforcement.
• Leaving a child unsupervised with an individual, other than the child’s parent, who the actor
knows or reasonably should have known:

n Is required to register as a Tier II or Tier III sexual offender under 42 Pa.C.S. Ch. 97 Subch. H
(relating to registration of sexual offenders), where the victim of the sexual offense was under 18
years of age when the crime was committed.
n Has been determined to be a sexually violent predator under 42 Pa.C.S. §9799.24 (relating to
assessments) or any of its predecessors.
n Has been determined to be a sexually violent delinquent child as defined in 42 Pa.C.S. §9799.12
(relating to definitions).
n Causing the death of the child through any act or failure to act.
n Engaging a child in a severe form of trafficking in persons or sex trafficking, as those terms are
defined under Section 103 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 1466, 22
U.S.C. §7102).
Reports
In FFY 2016, the number of reports for suspected child abuse increased from FFY 2015. This increase
is largely due to legislative changes enacted in late 2014 which expanded the definitions of child abuse
and perpetrator, streamlined and clarified mandatory child abuse reporting processes, increased
penalties for failure to report suspected child abuse, and protected persons who report child abuse.
The law now requires a mandated reporter to make a direct report to the child abuse hotline rather
than reporting up a chain of command within their organization. The amendments to the definition
of child abuse, specifically the inclusion of additional categories of abuse and the lower threshold
for substantiating a report of child abuse, have led to an increase in the number of reports being
made, as well as the substantiation of these reports. Along with the amendments to the definition of
child abuse, the definition of perpetrator has also been expanded to capture additional categories of
individuals as perpetrators when they abuse a child.
Children
In FFY 2016 the number of victims increased by significantly from FFY 2015. This increase is likely
due to the amendments to the law as described above.
Fatalities
Pennsylvania law requires that every child fatality and near fatality resulting from substantiated abuse,
or on cases in which no status determination has been made within 30 days, be reviewed at the county
level. A state level review is conducted on all fatalities and near fatalities where abuse is suspected,
regardless of status determination. The information and data collected from both levels of review
are analyzed for trends and risk factors across Pennsylvania. These reviews and analyses provide the
foundation used for determining the root causes of severe child abuse and neglect. They are also used to
better understand what responses or services can be used in the future to prevent similar occurrences.

Pennsylvania (continued)
Pennsylvania does not use data from sources and agencies other than child protective services to
compile and report child fatalities.
Perpetrators
Pennsylvania defines a perpetrator as a person who has committed child abuse and is any of the
following:
n A parent of the child
n A spouse or former spouse of the child’s parent
n A paramour or former paramour of the child’s parent
n A person 14 years of age or older and responsible for the child’s welfare or having direct contact
with children as an employee of child-care services, a school or through a program, activity or

service
n An individual 14 years of age or older who resides in the same home as the child
n An individual 18 years of age or older who does not reside in the same home as the child but is
related within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity by birth or adoption to the child
n An individual 18 years of age or older who engages in severe forms of trafficking in persons or sex
trafficking, as those terms are defined under section 103 of the Trafficking Victims Protections Act
of 2000 (114 Stat. 1466, 22 U.S.C. § 7102)
Additionally, only the following may be considered a perpetrator for failing to act:
n A parent of the child
n A spouse or former spouse of the child’s parent
n A paramour or former paramour of the child’s parent
n A person 18 years of age or older and responsible for the child’s welfare
n A person 18 years of age or older who resides in the same home as the child
Services
Pennsylvania is reporting out on limited services data and plans on providing more complete services
data in the future.

Puerto Rico
Contact Lisa M. Agosto Phone 787–625–4900 ext. 1719
Title Director Central Registry Email lmagosto@familia.pr.gov
Address Puerto Rico Department of the Family––Administration for

Families and Children (ADFAN)
PO Box 194090
San Juan, PR 00919–4090
Contact Eddie A. Garcia Fuentes Phone 787–625–4900 ext. 1809
Title Deputy Administrator Email edgarcia@familia.pr.gov
Address Puerto Rico Department of the Family––Administration for

Families and Children (ADFAN)
PO Box 194090
San Juan, PR 00919–4090
General
The implementation of the integrated case management mechanized system (SIMCa) has had a
significant impact on the production of the NCANDS Child File. The new system began on April 29,
2016. According to the time period established by NCANDS, most of the investigations included in
the file come from the database that migrated from the old system to the new system. The process of
migrating data resulted in the records of the legacy system confronting new rules and requirements.
This affected the way the data were interpreted. The SIMCa system induced changes in the way
information was collected to produce the NCANDS file. The errors identified in the federal fiscal
year (FFY) 2016 Child File are mostly related to data that migrated from the SIRCSe system. It also
includes errors due to data entry that the legacy system allowed without restrictions or requirements.
These errors affected, among other things, the number of records that were accepted by NCANDS in
the validation process.

Rhode Island
Contact David Allenson Phone 401–528–3858
Title Agency IT Manager Email david.allenson@dcyf.ri.gov
Address Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families

101 Friendship Street
Providence, RI 02903
General
In 2016, Rhode Island began the process of implementing Structured Decision Making (SDM) within
the child protective services (CPS) Division. The Department has identified key decision points that
significantly affect families: receipt of initial information, investigative determination, response
priority and removal of a child. Consultations with industry professionals have confirmed the con-
sistent use of structured assessments at each decision point would enhance safety, permanency and
well-being of children and families, better support staff, and allow resources to be more effectively
utilized.
Reports
The Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) is required to investigate reports of child
abuse and neglect. DCYF promulgated Policy 500.0010 to identify the five criteria for CPS investiga-
tions/alerts. The CPS criteria are as follows:
n Investigation Criteria 1: Child Abuse/Neglect (CA/N) Report-RIGL 40-11-3 requires DCYF to
immediately investigate reports of child abuse and neglect. The circumstances reported, if true,
must constitute child abuse/neglect as defined by RIGL 40-11-2.
n Investigation Criteria 2: Nonrelative Caregiver-RIGL 42-72.1-4 requires that no parent assigns or
otherwise transfers to another, not related to him or her by blood or marriage, his or her rights or
duties with respect to the permanent care and custody of his or her child under eighteen years of
age unless duly authorized by an order or decree of the court.
n Investigation Criteria 3: Sexual Abuse of a Child by Another Child-RIGL 40-11-3 requires DCYF
to immediately investigate sexual abuse of a child by another child.

n Investigation Criteria 4: Duty to Warn-RIGL 42-72-8 allows DCYF to release information if it is
determined that there is a risk of physical injury by a person to himself/herself or others and that
disclosure of the records is necessary to reduce that risk. If the hotline receives a report that a
perpetrator of sexual abuse or serious physical abuse has access to another child in a family dwell-
ing, that report is classified as an investigation and assigned for investigation.
n Investigation Criteria 5: Alert to Area Hospitals —Safety of Unborn Child—RIGL 42-72-8 allows
DCYF to release information if it is determined that there is a risk of physical injury by a person
to himself/herself or others and that disclosure of the records is necessary to reduce that risk. The
department issues an alert to area hospitals when a parent has a history of substantiated child
abuse/neglect or a child abuse/neglect conviction and there is concern about the safety of a child.
Those cases that do not meet the criteria for investigation and there is concern for the well-being of
a child may be classified as an information and referral (I/R). This classification is a derivative of a
previous protocol that DCYF had relating to classifying reports to the child abuse hotline as early
warnings. The I/R process is not reflected in Rhode Island General Laws (RIGL). Rather, DCYF has
promulgated a policy and published a protocol that codifies the informational and referral process.
Pursuant to the department’s I/R policy, when an I/R report is received by the child abuse hotline
relating to a case that is not active with DCYF and it appears that there is a service need, a referral for
service is made to CPS intake. When an I/R report is received on a case active to DCYF, a notifica-
tion is made to the primary caseworker and supervisor.
Rhode Island (continued)
While the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS), RICHIST, can link
more than one report source per report, only one person can be identified as the person who actually
makes the report. If more than one report is linked to an investigation, the person identified as the
reporter in the first report is used in the Child File.
The total number of CPS workers is based upon currently occupied full-time equivalents (FTEs) for
child protective investigators, child protective supervisors, intake social caseworkers II, and intake
casework supervisors II. Supervisors accept, screen, and investigate reports meeting criteria for
child abuse and child neglect. Intake and case monitoring social caseworkers II and intake casework
supervisors II are responsible for screening all new cases entering the department via CPS investiga-
tions, intake service self-referrals, and family court referrals. Upon screening those cases, intake
determines whether cases can be closed to the department upon referral to community-based services,
or if the family warrants legal status or a higher level of DCYF oversight and permanency planning,
which results in transfer to DCYF Family Service Units.
The investigation start date is defined as the date when CPS first had face-to-face contact with the
alleged victim of the child maltreatment or attempted to have face-to-face contact. The data are
recorded as a date/timestamp which includes the date and the time of the contact or attempted contact.
Children
The NCANDS category of “other” maltreatment type includes the state categories of institutional
allegations such as corporal punishment, other institutional abuse, and other institutional neglect. The
current policy is that only the named victim has an allegation, and the facility or home is referred to
the licensing unit to look at licensing violations rather than child abuse or neglect.
Fatalities
The fatalities reported for child abuse and neglect in the Child and Agency Files only come from
those reported to the department and recorded in RICHIST. By state law, all child maltreatment
is required to be reported to DCYF, regardless of whether it results in a death. There are no other
sources except RICHIST that collect fatality information.

South Carolina
Contact Lynn Horne Phone 803–724–5933
Title CAPSS Project Administrator Email lynn.horne@dss.sc.gov
Address CAPSS IT
South Carolina Department of Social Services
PO Box 1520
Columbia, SC 29201
General
South Carolina has continued with Community Based Prevention Services (CBPS), which began in
January 2012. This program serves as the South Carolina Department of Social Services’ (DSS) alter-
native response program. DSS uses the Safety and Risk Matrix to assess intakes made to the Abuse
and Neglect Hotline. Accepted intakes are assigned to investigation if safety or high-risk issues are
present. Referral to CBPS is only for those cases in which the intake and resulting matrix assessment
indicate low to moderate risk. These cases are not accepted by the Agency for investigation. CBPS
is a contracted service with private providers and an interface for assessments and dictation which is
populated in the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS, also known as
CAPSS in South Carolina).
Reports
Referrals and screened-in referrals continued to substantially increase in federal fiscal year (FFY)
2016 as South Carolina operationalizes regionalized intake centers in a multi-year project. The
implementation of regionalized intake staff and centralized intake practice and leadership is designed
to increase the consistency across the state related to evaluation and assignment of CPS complaints.
The increase in accepted referrals has resulted in increases in all categories of data.
Children
The children in families referred for CBPS are reported in FFY 2016 NCANDS data submission with
a disposition of alternative response non-victim and the NCANDS category of “other” maltreatment
type. The number of children increased as there were more referrals made to CBPS in FFY 2016 than
in FFY 2015. All demographic information was reported on these children.
Fatalities
There was a slight decrease in child fatalities investigated by SCDSS from FFY 2015 to FFY 2016. No
policy or legislative changes impacted child fatalities.
Law enforcement, the coroner, the medical examiner, and the Department of Health and
Environmental Control (Bureau of Vital Statistics Division) report all child deaths that were not the
result of natural causes, to the State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) for an investigation. SLED
refers their findings to the State Child Fatality Committee for a review. The children whose deaths
appear to have been a result of child maltreatment by a “person responsible for a child’s welfare,”
including, but not limited to a parent, guardian, or foster parent are reported to DSS by SLED during
their investigation. This list is compared to the agency SACWIS system by name, date of birth,
date of death, and parents’ names to ensure there is no duplication in reporting the fatalities in the
NCANDS Child and Agency files. The Agency File includes all fatalities that occurred in FFY 2016
that were not included in the Child File and were reported to SCDSS by the State Child Fatality
Committee.

South Dakota
Contact JoLynn Bostrom Phone 605–347–2588 ext. 203
Title Program Specialist Email jolynn.bostrom@state.sd.us
Address South Dakota Department of Social Services

2200 W Main Street
Sturgis, SD 57785
General
Child protection services (CPS) does not utilize the differential response model. CPS either screens
in reports, which are assigned as initial family assessments, or the reports are screened out. However,
the initial family assessment allows CPS to open a case for services based on safety threats without
substantiation of an incident of abuse or neglect. South Dakota does refer reports to other agencies if
the report does not meet the requirements for assignment, and it appears the family could benefit from
the assistance of another agency.
Reports
CPS child abuse and neglect screening and response processes are based on allegations that indicate
the presence of safety threats, which includes the concern for child maltreatment. CPS makes screen-
ing decisions using the Screening Guideline and Response Decision Tool. Assignment is based on
child safety and vulnerability. The response decision is related to whether the information reported
indicates present danger, impending danger, or any other safety threat. A report is screened out if it
does not meet the criteria in the Screening Guideline and Response Decision Tool as described above.
South Dakota Codified Law 26-8A-3 mandates which entities are required to report child abuse and
neglect.
“26-8A-3. Persons required to report child abuse or neglected child-Intentional failure as

misdemeanor. Any physician, dentist, doctor of osteopathy, chiropractor, optometrist, emer-
gency medical technician, paramedic, mental health professional or counselor, podiatrist,
psychologist, religious healing practitioner, social worker, hospital intern or resident, parole
or court services officer, law enforcement officer, teacher, school counselor, school official,
nurse, licensed or registered child welfare provider, employee or volunteer of a domestic
abuse shelter, employee or volunteer of a child advocacy organization or child welfare service
provider, chemical dependency counselor, coroner, or any safety-sensitive position as defined
in § 3-6C-1, who has reasonable cause to suspect that a child under the age of eighteen has
been abused or neglected as defined in § 26-8A-2 shall report that information in accordance
with §§ 26-8A-6, 26-8A-7, and 26-8A-8. Any person who intentionally fails to make the required
report is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Any person who knows or has reason to suspect that
a child has been abused or neglected as defined in § 26-8A-2 may report that information as
provided in § 26-8A-8.”
The NCANDS category of “other” report source in the Child File includes the state categories of
clergy, community person, coroner, domestic violence shelter employee or volunteer, funeral director,
other state agency, public official and tribal official.
Reports of abuse and neglect are categorized into four types: neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse,
and/or emotional maltreatment. Medical neglect is included in the neglect category.

South Dakota (continued)
Children
The data reported in the Child File includes children who were victims of substantiated reports of
child abuse and neglect where the perpetrator is the parent, guardian or custodian.
Fatalities
Children who died due to substantiated child abuse and neglect by their parent, guardian or custodian
are reported as child fatalities. The number reported each year are those victims involved in a report
disposed during the report period, even if their date of death may have actually been in the previous
year. The state of South Dakota reports child fatalities in the Child File and the Agency File.
South Dakota Codified Law 26-8A-4 mandates that anyone who has reasonable cause to suspect that
a child has died as a result of child abuse or neglect must report. The reporting process required by
SDCL 26-8A-4 stipulates that the report must be made to the medical examiner or coroner and in turn
the medical examiner or coroner must report to the South Dakota Department of Social Services.
“26-8A-4. Additional persons to report death resulting from abuse or neglect––Intentional

failure as misdemeanor. In addition to the report required under § 26-8A-3, any person who
has reasonable cause to suspect that a child has died as a result of child abuse or neglect as
defined in § 26-8A-2 shall report that information to the medical examiner or coroner. Upon
receipt of the report, the medical examiner or coroner shall cause an investigation to be made
and submit written findings to the state’s attorney and the Department of Social Services. Any
person required to report under this section who knowingly and intentionally fails to make a
report is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.”
When CPS receives reports of child maltreatment deaths as required under SDCL 26-8A-4 from any
source, CPS documents the report in FACIS (SACWIS). Reports that meet the NCANDS data defini-
tion are reported to NCANDS.
The Justice for Children’s Committee (Children’s Justice Act Task Force) is also updated annually on
the handling of suspected child abuse and neglect related fatalities.
Perpetrators
Perpetrators are defined as individuals who abused or neglected a child and are the child’s par-
ent, guardian or custodian. The state information system designates one perpetrator per child per
allegation.
Services
The Agency File data includes services provided to children and families where funds were used for
primary prevention from the Community Based Family Resource and Support Grant. This primarily
involves individuals who received benefit from parenting education classes or parent aide services.
Data are not reported by South Dakota for those elements in Chapter 6 where South Dakota data are
missing.
The state of South Dakota, Division of Child Protection Services with the consent of the parent,
refers every child under the age of 3 involved in a substantiated case of child abuse or neglect to the

South Dakota (continued)
Department of Education’s Birth to Three Connections program. This program is responsible for the
IDEA services. The parent or guardian is advised by the Division of Child Protection Services that
with their permission, a referral to Birth to Three Connections will be made for a developmental
screening of their child. The parent or guardian needs to sign a DSS Information Authorization
Form before the referral is made. The parent or guardian is also given a Birth to Three Connections
brochure and provided the name of the service coordinator that will be contacting them to schedule
the screening. The Birth to Three Connections intake form is then completed and faxed with the
Information Authorization to the Birth to Three Connections coordinators to determine eligibility
and write an individual family service plan for eligible children within 45 days of the receipt of the
referral. Not all children referred by the Division of Child Protection Services to the Birth to Three
program are eligible for services.

Tennessee
Contact Brian Gracia Phone 615–741–7338
Title Programmer Analyst Supervisor Email brian.gracia@tn.gov
Address Tennessee Department of Children Services

Davy Crockett Tower 2nd Floor
500 James Robinson Pkwy
Nashville, TN 37208
General
Beginning with federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016, the state allegations of drug exposed child and drug
exposed infant are mapped to the NCANDS maltreatment type of physical abuse. Previously, these 2
allegations were mapped to the NCANDS category of neglect.
In looking at the underlying data in the FFY 2016 Child File, almost 36 percent of the child protective
services (CPS) cases reported, contain at least one alleged child victim (ACV) with an allegation of
drug exposed child or drug exposed infant.
Reports
A referral may be screened out for the following reasons:
n Allegation previously investigated
n Alleged victim is 18 years or older
n Duplicate referral
n Family resides out of state
n Illegal placement; no services to be provided
n Incomplete referral packet
n No allegation of harm or imminent harm
n No identifying information available
n Out of state incident—no one in tn
n Preliminary report—sudden infant death syndrome (sids)—nonsuspicious death
n Prenatal abuse and neglect
The NCANDS category of “other” report source includes when a licensed person from a social
services agency makes the referral.
Fatalities
All child maltreatment fatalities are extracted from the SACWIS and reported in the Child File.
The number of reported fatalities for FFY 2016 is 41. This increase represents a normal variance, and
there has been no change in the Agency’s practices or policies during FFY 2016 in regard to reporting
child fatalities.
Perpetrators
The following perpetrators fields are captured by the SACWIS in the case recording narrative and
cannot be extracted for reporting purposes. When possible, perpetrator as caregiver is indicated in the
Child File, but should be deemed as unreliable:
n Perpetrator-1 as caregiver
n Incident date

Tennessee (continued)
Services
The following services fields are captured by the SACWIS in the case recording narrative and cannot
be extracted for reporting purposes:
n Family preservation services
n Family planning services
n Housing services
n Information and referral services
The following services fields are not collected and cannot be reported:
n Number of out-of-court contacts between the court-appointed representatives and the child victims
they represent
n Unique child victims eligible for referral to agencies providing early intervention services
n Unique child victims actually referred to agencies providing early intervention services under
Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Texas
Contact Mark Prindle Phone 512–929–6753
Title System Analyst Email mark.prindle@dfps.state.tx.us
Address Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

2323 Ridgepoint Dr.
Austin, TX 78754
General
Alternative response (AR) is a new approach that responds differently than traditional investigations
to reports of abuse/neglect. It allows for a more flexible, family engaging approach while still focus-
ing on the safety of the children as much as in a traditional investigation. AR allows screened-in
reports of low to moderate risk to be diverted from a traditional investigation and serviced through an
alternative family centered assessment track. There will be no change in the number or type of clients
served, but some alternative response clients will be served in a different manner. Generally, the
alternative response track will serve accepted child abuse and neglect cases that do not allege serious
harm. AR cases will differ from traditional investigations cases in that there will be no substantia-
tion of allegations related roles or dispositions, the names of perpetrators will not be entered into the
central registry (a repository for confirmed reports of child abuse and neglect), and there will be a
heightened focus on guiding the family to plan for safety in a way that works for them.
Beginning in November 2014 portions of regions 1, 3, and 11 implemented and began practicing AR
to develop experience and expertise. Implementation was staggered to allow for planning and train-
ing, with 5 of 12 regions implementing AR between May 2015 and May 2016. Statewide implementa-
tion is expected to be complete by December 31, 2018.
The Structured Decision Making® (SDM) system includes a series of evidenced-based assessments
used at key points in child protection casework to support staff in making consistent, accurate,
and equitable decisions throughout the course of their work with families. In Texas, select SDM
assessments are being implemented across the state in two phases. Phase 1 began in January 2015
with the goal of implementing the SDM Safety Assessment and Risk Assessment in Investigations
by September 2015. The safety assessment provides structured information concerning the danger
of immediate harm/maltreatment to a child. This assessment guides and supports decisions about
whether a child may remain in the home with no intervention, may remain in the home with a safety
plan in place, or must be protectively placed. The second SDM assessment tool implemented by Texas
was the family risk assessment. The risk assessment is a research-based assessment that estimates
the likelihood that a family will again become involved with CPS due to a subsequent maltreatment
incident. The risk assessment incorporates a range of family characteristics (e.g., number of prior
referrals, children’s ages, and caregiver behaviors) that all demonstrate a strong correlation with
subsequent child abuse/neglect referrals. In September 2016, a third SDM tool, the family strengths
and needs assessment, rolled out statewide and is used in Family Based Safety Services (FBSS) and
conservatorship cases to assess family strengths and needs and to help inform the family plan of
service. Phase II may include the roll out of two additional SDM tools, the risk reassessment and the
family reunification assessment, which may occur in fiscal year (FY) 2018.
Reports
All reports of maltreatment within the jurisdiction of the Department of Family and Protective
Services (DFPS) are investigated, excluding those which during the screening process are determined
not to warrant an investigation based on reliable collateral information.

Texas (continued)
The state considers the start of the investigation to be the point at which the first actual or attempted
contact is made with a principal in the investigation. In some instances, the worker will get a report
about a new incident of abuse or neglect involving a family who is already being investigated or
receiving services in an open child protective services (CPS) case. There are also instances in which
workers begin their investigation when families and children are brought to or walk-in an office or
24-hour shelter. In both situations, the worker would then report the maltreatment incident after
the first face-to-face contact initializing the investigation has been made. Because the report date
is recorded as the date the suspected maltreatment is reported to the agency, these situations would
result in the report date being after the investigation start date.
The state’s CPS schema regarding disposition hierarchy differs from NCANDS hierarchy. The state
has other and closed-no finding codes as superseding unsubstantiated at the report level. Texas works
on the principle that the two ends of the disposition spectrum are founded and unfounded with all else
in the middle. NCANDS takes a slightly different view that the two “sure” points are founded and
unfounded and everything else is less than either of these two points. The state’s hierarchy for overall
disposition is, from highest to lowest, reason to believe (RTB), unable to determine (UTD), unable to
complete (UTC), and ruled out (R/O). Mapping for NCANDS reporting is; RTB is coded to substanti-
ated, UT is coded to other, UTC is coded to closed-no finding, and R/O is coded to unsubstantiated.
An inconsistency in the hierarchies for the state and for NCANDS occurs in investigations where an
alleged victim has multiple maltreatment allegations and one has a disposition of UTD while the other
has a maltreatment disposition of R/O. According to the state’s hierarchy, the overall disposition for
these investigations is UTD. Mapping the report disposition to unsubstantiated as indicated in the
NCANDS’s Report Disposition Hierarchy report would be inconsistent with state policy.
There is no CPS program requirement or state requirement to capture incident date, so there is no data
field in the SACWIS system for this information. This is a historical problem; the date that an abuse/
neglect incident occurred does not conform to only one date if abuse/neglect is ongoing. Therefore,
identifying one date would be inaccurate.
Children
The state does not make a distinction between substantiated and indicated victims.
A child has the role of designated victim when he or she is named as a victim in an allegation that has
a disposition of reason to believe.
A child (age 10 or older) has the role of designated perpetrator when he or she is named as a perpetra-
tor in an allegation that has a disposition of reason to believe.
A child (age 10 or older) has the role of designated both (i.e., designated victim and designated perpe-
trator in the same case) when he or she is named as a victim in an allegation that has a disposition of
reason to believe and as a perpetrator in an allegation that has a disposition of reason to believe.
A person (child or adult) has the role of unknown (unable to determine) when he or she is named in an
allegation that has a disposition of unable to determine but is not named in another allegation that has
a disposition of reason to believe.

Texas (continued)
A person (child or adult) has the role of unknown (unable to complete) when he or she is named in an
allegation that has a disposition of unable to complete but is not named in another allegation that has a
disposition of reason to believe or unable to determine.
A person (child or adult) has the role of not involved when all the allegations in which the person is
named have a disposition of ruled out, the overall disposition for the investigation is administrative
closure, or the person was not named in an allegation as a perpetrator or victim.
The state can provide data for living arrangement at the time of the alleged incident of maltreatment
only for children investigated while in a substitute care living situation. All others are reported as
unknown.
Fatalities
The source of information used for reporting child maltreatment fatalities is the reason for death
field contained in the DFPS IMPACT system. DFPS uses information from the state’s vital statistics
department, child death review teams, law enforcement agencies and medical examiners’ offices
when reporting fatalities. DFPS is the primary agency required by law to investigate and report on
child maltreatment fatalities in Texas when the perpetrator is a person responsible for the care of the
child. Information from the other agencies/entities listed above is often used to make reports to DFPS
that initiate an investigation into suspected abuse or neglect that may have led to a child fatality. Also,
DFPS uses information gathered by law enforcement and medical examiners’ offices to reach disposi-
tions in the child fatalities investigated by DFPS. Other agencies, however, have different criteria
for assessing and evaluating causes of death that may not be consistent with the child abuse/neglect
definitions in the Texas Family Code and/or may not be interpreted or applied in the same manner as
within DFPS.
During federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016, child fatalities due to abuse or neglect increased compared
to the prior year. Trends noted include an increase in drownings and neglectful supervision-related
vehicle accidents in the gulf bend area (Region 6) and increases in physical abuse and medical-
related fatalities in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area (Region 3). Other factors impacting child fatalities
include higher crime/domestic violence than in previous years reported in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area.
Additional training has been provided with staff and community partners on reporting child fatalities
where there are concerns for abuse or neglect, both during the child’s life and as a component of the
child’s death. There have been no changes to policy or practice made during FFY 2016 that would
impact this increase.
Perpetrators
Relationships reported for individuals are based on the person’s relationship to the oldest alleged vic-
tim in the investigation. The state is unable to report the perpetrator’s relationship to each individual
alleged victim, but rather reports data as the perpetrator relates to the oldest alleged victim.
Currently, the state’s relationship code for foster parent perpetrators does not distinguish between
relative/nonrelative.

Utah
Contact Brandon Kemper Phone 801–538–4132
Title Senior Business Analyst Email bkemper@utah.gov
Address Utah Division of Child and Family Services

195 N. 1950 W.
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
General
Utah has one statewide centralized call-in center for intake functions. Department of Children and
Family Services (DCFS) intake staff are available 24-hours a day, and having a centralized call-in
center is meant to improve statewide consistency in screening functions.
Reports
The investigation start date is defined as the date a child is first seen by child protective services
(CPS). The data are captured in date, hours, and minutes. A referral is screened out in situations
including, but not limited to:
n The minimum required information for accepting a referral is not available.
n As a result of research, the information is found not credible or reliable.
n The specific incidence or allegation has been previously investigated and no new information is
gathered.
n If all the information provided by the referent were found to be true and the case finding would
still be unsupported.
n The specific allegation is under investigation and no new information is gathered.
The state uses the following findings:

n Supported—a finding, based on the information available to the worker at the end of the investiga-
tion, that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that abuse, neglect, or dependency occurred, and
that the identified perpetrator is responsible.
n Unsupported—a finding based on the information available to the worker at the end of the inves-
tigation that there was insufficient information to conclude that abuse, neglect, or dependency
occurred. A finding of unsupported means that the worker was unable to make a positive determi-
nation that the allegation was actually without merit.
n Without merit—an affirmative finding at the completion of the investigation that the alleged abuse,
neglect, or dependency did not occur, or that the alleged perpetrator was not responsible.
n Unable to locate—a category indicating that even though the child and family services child pro-
tective services (CPS) worker has followed the steps outlined in child and family services practice
guideline and has made reasonable efforts, the child and family services CPS worker has been
unable to make face-to-face contact with the alleged victims to investigate an allegation of abuse,
neglect, or dependency and to make a determination of whether the allegation should be classified
as supported, nonsupported, or without merit.
Children
Prior to federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016, the NCANDS category of “other” maltreatment type included
the state categories of failure to protect, dependency, safe relinquishment of a newborn, and pediatric
condition falsification. As of FFY 2016, the state category of failure to neglect is being mapped to the
NCANDS category of neglect. The definition of child endangerment is subjecting a child to threat-
ened harm. This also includes, but is not limited to, conduct described in:

Utah (continued)
n Utah Code Ann. §76-5-112: recklessly engaging in conduct that creates a substantial risk of death
or serious bodily injury to a child, or
n Utah Code Ann. §76-5-112.5: knowing or intentionally causing or permitting a child to be exposed
to, inhale, ingest, or have contact with a controlled substance, chemical substance, or drug
paraphernalia (as these terms are defined in this section). “Exposed to” means the child is able to
access or view an unlawfully possessed controlled substance or chemical substance, has reason-
able capacity to access drug paraphernalia, or is able to smell an odor produced during or because
of the manufacture or production of a controlled substance.
In 2011–2012 Utah DCFS reviewed sexual abuse definitions with our attorneys. This has led to
additional cases being opened. Additionally, changes to expungement laws have led to separate cases
being opened if there were multiple perpetrators involved in one incident to facilitate the ability to
expunge cases. Both have led to an increase in the number of sexual abuse cases investigated.
A group of ID’s have been identified for unknown or purged children. These ID’s are valid for FFY
2009 forward. Cases may be purged when the maltreatment was without merit.
Fatalities
Concerns related to child abuse and neglect, including fatalities, are required to be reported to the
Utah DCFS. Fatalities where the CPS investigation determined the abuse was due to abuse or neglect
are reported in the NCANDS Child File.
Perpetrators
A group of ID’s have been identified for unknown or purged perpetrators. These ID’s are valid for
FFY 2009 forward. Cases may be purged when the maltreatment was without merit.
Services
As of April 2015, Utah’s CPS workers no longer screen for developmental delays. As a result, IDEA
Part C referrals are no longer reported to NCANDS. DCFS now directly refers children to the Utah
early intervention agency to better meet the requirements outlined in the Child Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Act (CAPTA) regarding the “referral of a child under the age of 3 who is involved in a
substantiated case of child abuse or neglect to early intervention services funded under part C of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.” Since April, a list of every child 34 and a half months or
younger, with a supported finding of abuse or neglect is sent to the Utah Department of Health’s Baby
Watch Early Intervention Program (BWEIP), which then contacts the family to offer their screening
services. In addition, DCFS sends a letter to each family to inform them of this mandatory referral
and encourage them to accept the screening.
In FFY 2016, Utah changed the way services are reported to NCANDS. Old services are no longer
reported to NCANDS, and as a result, there was a decrease in the percentage of children with services
for FFY 2016 as compared to FFY 2015.
Finally, prevention services in the Agency File are only reported in children served and not families
served in order to avoid duplication; however, a child may be counted twice if they received services
from different agencies receiving money from the same funding source.

Vermont
Contact Melissa Burt Phone 802–241–0879
Title Quality Assurance Coordinator Email melissa.burt@vermont.gov
Address Vermont Family Services IT

Vermont Department for Children and Families
280 State Dr. HC1 North
Waterbury, VT 05671
General
Vermont has a differential response program with an assessment track and an investigation track.
About 40 percent of cases are assigned to the assessment pathway.
In the assessment pathway, the disposition options are services needed and no services needed. Cases
assigned to the assessment pathway may be switched to the investigation pathway, but not vice versa.
Data from both pathways are reported to NCANDS. The Family Services Division is responsible for
responding to allegations of child abuse or risk of harm by caregivers and sexual abuse by any person
(not just caregivers). In addition to conducting our statutory child abuse investigations and assess-
ments, we also have an option to conduct family assessments. These family assessments do not meet
statutory requirements for abuse and neglect but provide an option to engage with families where
there are concerns. Because these family assessments are not part of our abuse and neglect statute,
they are not reflected in our data. However, it is important to acknowledge that on an annual basis, we
conduct approximately 1,000–1,200 family assessments.
Reports
Vermont operates a statewide child protection hotline, available 24-hours a day, 7-days a week. All
intakes are handled by social workers and screening decisions are handled by hotline supervisors.
These same supervisors make the initial track assignment decision. All calls to the child abuse hotline
are counted as referrals, resulting in a very high rate of referrals per 1,000 children, and making it
appear that Vermont has a very low screen-in rate. Reasons for screening a report out include: (1)
duplicate report (2) report does not concern child maltreatment as defined in state statute.
Children
The Family Services Division is responsible for investigating allegations of child abuse or neglect by
caregivers and sexual abuse by any person. The department investigates risk of physical harm and
risk of sexual abuse.
Fatalities
The department is an active participant in Vermont’s Child Fatality Review Committee.
Perpetrators
For sexual abuse, perpetrators include noncaregiver perpetrators of any age.
Services
Following an investigation or assessment, a validated risk assessment tool is applied. If the family is
classified as at high- or very high-risk for future child maltreatment, the family is offered in-home
services, and may be referred to other community services designed to address risk factors and build
protective capacities.

Virginia
Contact Christopher Spain Phone 804–726–7554
Title Program Manager Child Protective Services Email christopher.r.spain@dss.virginia.gov
Address Virginia Department of Social Services

801 East Main Street, 15h floor
Richmond, VA 23219
Contact David Bringman Phone 804–726–7553
Title Policy Analyst Email david.bringman@dss.virginia.gov
Address Virginia Department of Social Services

801 East Main Street, 15h floor
Richmond, VA 23219
General
In accordance with Virginia Administrative Code 22VAC40-705-130(A)(3) the record of the unfounded
case shall be purged one year after the date of the complaint or report if there are no subsequent founded
or unfounded complaints and/or reports regarding the individual against whom allegations of abuse and/
or neglect were made or regarding the same child in that one year. Therefore, with each subsequent data
resubmission, there is a decrease in the number of unsubstantiated reports submitted.
The Virginia Administrative Code 22VAC40-705-10 defines family assessment as the collection of
information necessary to determine:
n The immediate safety needs of the child
n The protective and rehabilitative services needs of the child and family that will deter abuse or
neglect
n Risk of future harm to the child
n Alternative plans for the child’s safety if protective and rehabilitative services are indicated and
the family is unable or unwilling to participate in services. These arrangements may be made in
consultation with the caretaker(s) of the child.
Reports
Reports placed in the investigation track receive a disposition of founded (substantiated) or unfounded
(unsubstantiated) for each maltreatment allegation. Reports placed in the family assessment track
receive a family assessment; no determination is made as to whether or not maltreatment actually
occurred. Virginia reports these family assessment cases to NCANDS as alternative response
nonvictim.
Many family assessment cases were not reported to NCANDS because of unknown maltreatment
type. An edit was applied in the case management system during federal fiscal year (FFY) 2014 to
address the issue resulting in fewer errors.
The response time is determined by the priority assigned to the valid report based on the informa-
tion collected at intake. It is measured from the date of the report. The department continues to seek
improvements to the automated data system and to provide technical assistance to local departments
of social services to improve documentation of the initial response to the investigation or family
assessment.
Children
Virginia reports family assessment cases to NCANDS as alternative response nonvictim.

Washington
Contact Lisa Barber Phone 360–902–8031
Title Reporting and Compliance Analyst Email lisa.barber@dshs.wa.gov
Address Washington Department of Social and Health Services

7240 Martin Way
Lacey, WA 98516
General
A Structured Decision Making intake screening tool (SDM) was implemented in late 2013, which
supported the development of a two-pathway response for child protective services (CPS) response when
there are allegations of child abuse and neglect (CA/N) and clear definitions for CPS risk-only intakes.
CPS risk-only intakes involve a child whose circumstances places him or her at imminent risk of
serious harm without any specific allegations of abuse or neglect. When CPS risk-only intakes are
screened in: (1) the children must be seen by a CPS investigator within 24 hours, (2) a complete
investigation is required, and (3) if the investigator finds evidence of abuse or neglect, a victim and
findings will be recorded, and the record will be included in the NCANDS Child File. CPS risk-only
intakes are not currently submitted to NCANDS because there is not a substantiation of maltreatment.
It should be noted that since CPS risk-only intakes do receive a full investigation, it is requested that
they be included in the federal fiscal year (FFY) 2017 report to provide an accurate reflection of the
number of CPS cases being investigated and assessed. Adding CPS risk-only intakes would increase
the total number of reports by 1,979.
During 2012, Washington’s Children’s Administration (CA) actively prepared for the start of a new
CPS differential response pathway, called family assessment response (FAR), as the demonstration
project for Washington’s IVE Waiver. This preparation included eliminating the alternative response
(10-day response intakes) and developing a two-pathway response for CPS intakes: investigation
which requires a 24- or 72-hour response time, and FAR, requiring a 72-hour response. Intakes
screened to FAR predominately contain allegations for neglect and are considered low risk, not
requiring an immediate response. The SDM provides consistency in screening, and it guides intakes
with neglect allegations considered low risk to the FAR pathway. Intakes with chronicity indicators
or allegations of moderate to severe physical abuse and all sexual abuse allegations are screened to
the investigation pathway. Intakes with any allegations for physical abuse for children ages 0 to 3 or
on an active dependency are screened to investigation. This two-pathway response began in January
2014 in three offices and continues to be phased-in across the state. The department has implemented
the FAR pathway in 43 offices. It is expected that FAR will be fully implemented in the remaining 3
offices by June of 2017.
Up until FFYs 2013–2014, alternative response (10-day response) was assigned to intakes contain-
ing low-risk allegations. Services were offered to families with children through community-based
contracted providers.
Reports
To be screened in for CPS intervention, intakes must meet sufficiency. Washington’s sufficiency
screening consists of three criteria:
n Allegations must meet the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) for child abuse and neglect.
n The alleged victim of child abuse and neglect must be younger than 18 years.
n The alleged subject of child abuse or neglect has a role of parent, acting in loco parentis, or
unknown.
Washington (continued)
Intakes that do not meet one of the above criteria are not screened in for a CPS response unless there
is imminent risk of harm (CPS risk only) to the child. Intakes that allege a crime has been commit-
ted but do not meet Washington’s screening criteria are referred to the law enforcement jurisdiction
where the alleged crime occurred. CPS risk only intakes receive an investigation with a 24- or
72-hour response.
Intakes screened to the FAR pathway do not receive a CPS finding. Additionally, FAR intakes
are mapped as alternative response (AR) nonvictim in NCANDS and don’t receive findings on
allegations, so the maltreatment types are currently mapped to the NCANDS category of “other”
maltreatment types. In FFY 2015, there was a significant increase in intakes screened to the FAR
pathway from FFY 2014, thus eliminating a large pool of victims receiving a finding. The increase in
the number of intakes screened to the FAR pathway in FFY 2015 is a result of the staggered imple-
mentation of the FAR pathway across the state. In FFY 2016, there was a similar increase in intakes
screened to the FAR pathway from FFY 2015 because of additional offices implementing FAR and
due to additional training and consultation on the SDM intake screening tool and FAR pathway. In
offices that have not launched FAR, intakes screened to FAR using the SDM are diverted back to an
investigation pathway, allowed under the Washington state statute.
During FFYs 2014–2015, there was a significant increase noted for 24-hour emergent intakes, both
with allegations of CA/N and CPS risk only. Also during FFYs 2014–2015, there was an enhanced
focus on child safety related to children age 0–3. A new intake policy was implemented requiring that
screened-in physical abuse intakes regarding children 0–3 would be investigated, and children would
be seen within 24 hours. In FFY 2016, there was again an increase in CPS risk only and 24-hour
emergent intakes.
The Department of Licensed Resources (DLR), CPS, and DLR-CPS risk-only intakes alleging, abuse
or neglect of 18–21 year olds in facilities licensed or certified to care for children require a complete
investigation. If, during the investigation, it is determined that a child younger than 18 also was
allegedly abused by the same perpetrator, the investigation would then meet the criteria for a CPS
investigation rather than a CPS risk only investigation. A victim and findings will be recorded, and
the record will be included in the NCANDS Child File. For intakes containing child abuse and neglect
allegations, response times are determined based on the sufficiency screen and intake screening tool.
Response times of 24 hours or 72 hours are determined based on the imminent risk assessed by the
intake worker.
Children
An alleged victim is reported as substantiated if any of the alleged child abuse or neglect was
founded. The alleged victim is reported as unsubstantiated if all alleged child abuse or neglect identi-
fied was unfounded. The NCANDS category of “other” disposition previously included the number of
children in inconclusive investigations. Legislative changes resulted in inconclusive no longer being a
findings category. The NCANDS category of neglect includes medical neglect.
An analysis of common risk factors found for Washington state families involved in CPS since 2009
have shown an increase in negative outcomes over time. The risk factors are parent criminality,
parent mental illness, parent substance abuse, family economic stress, domestic violence and family
homelessness. In addition to the increase in negative outcomes, the families have more risk factors

Washington (continued)
per individual family than in previous years. Negative outcomes are recurrence, 90-day placement
rate, founded rate and families with a new founded or child(ren) placed within 365 days of investiga-
tion completion. This may assist in explaining the increased number of CPS intakes overall and a
substantial increase in the number of 24-hour response times for CPS investigations.
Fatalities
The state includes child fatalities that were determined to be the result of abuse or neglect by a
medical examiner or coroner or if there was a CPS finding of abuse or neglect. The state previously
counted only those child fatalities where the medical examiner or coroner ruled the manner of death
was a homicide. Washington only reports fatalities in the Agency File.
Perpetrators
The perpetrator relationship value of residential facility provider/staff is mapped to the NCANDS
value of group home or residential facility staff based on whether the child was in an open placement.
When residential facility provider/staff is selected and the child is in foster care, then it is mapped to
group home or residential facility staff. If the child was abused by residential facility provider/staff
and the child was not in an open placement, the perpetrator relationship is mapped to the NCANDS
category of “other” perpetrator relationship. The NCANDS category of “other” perpetrator relation-
ship includes the state categories of other and babysitter.
The parental type relationship is a combined parent birth/adoptive value. Because the NCANDS field
separates biological and adoptive parent and Washington’s system does not distinguish between the
two, parent birth/adoptive is mapped to the NCANDS category of unknown parent relationship.
Services
Families receive prevention and remedial services from the following sources: community based
services such as public health nurses, infant mental health, Head Start and the Parent-Child
Assistance Program, contracted services, including several evidence-based practices such as
Homebuilders, Incredible Years, Safe Care, Triple P, Parent-Child Interaction Therapy, and Promoting
First Relationships. Families can also receive CPS childcare, family reconciliation services, family
preservation, and intensive family preservation services. The number of recipients of the community-
based family resource and support grant is obtained from community-based child abuse prevention
(CBCAP).

West Virginia
Contact Stephanie Lindley Phone 304–558–5864
Title Functional Manager Email stephanie.l.lindley@wv.gov
Address West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources

One Davis Square, Suite 200
Charleston, WV 25301–1785
General
West Virginia does not have a differential response program.
Reports
During this NCANDS reporting period, Centralized Intake instituted a change in screening policy
regarding recurrent reports on the same family due to the high occurrence of substance abuse
statewide. The new policy indicates when the allegations meet legal definition for acceptance of the
report for assessment, subsequent recurrent reports on the same family within a 30-day period from
the acceptance date are screened out. After the 30-day period, any additional reports on a family with
an existing or open assessment are treated as a new report and will receive a screening decision based
on the code requirements, without consideration of current, open assessments. This policy change
produced a lower number of screened-out decisions, as prior to the 30-day time period being applied,
the practice allowed any recurrent referrals to be screened out and added to the existing open assess-
ment, even if the initial assessment had been opened over 30 days prior.
The increase in the number of hours for responding to the initial assessment during the current
reporting period in comparison to last year was influenced by multiple contributing factors. These
factors include an increase in the number of reports alleging abuse and neglect, staffing issues includ-
ing turnover, backlogged assessments, difficulty locating the family, documentation entered into the
system late, as well as both data entry and system errors.
Fatalities
In federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016, the Department made a policy change to include the investigation of
child fatalities for which there were no other children in the home. As these fatalities would not have
been included by the Department in prior FFYs, the fatality count for FFY 2016 displays an increase.
In 2016, West Virginia experienced ongoing and increased illegal drug use in our state. The review
team data for critical incidents reflects the crisis West Virginia is experiencing with drug use. Of the
13 child fatality cases reviewed by our critical incident team, only one case did not have substance
abuse as a factor either in the death or as a historical factor with the family. Of the 13 cases reviewed,
2 children died as a result of drug overdoses.

Wisconsin
Contact Fredi-Ellen Bove Phone 608–422–6891
Title Division of Safety and Permanence Email frediellen.bove@wisconsin.gov
Address Wisconsin Department of Children and Families

201 East Washington Avenue, Room E200
PO Box 8916
Madison, WI 53708–8916
General
There were no significant state policy changes that affect the data submission. However, multiple
revisions to the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) were made
recently to prevent some errors from occurring in the future. For example, our SACWIS system has
been revised to better report on the investigation start time field which tracks instances of where an
investigation start time was submitted, but the start date was not. This field had 1,056 errors in federal
fiscal year (FFY) 2015 and no errors in FFY 2016. Wisconsin also began reporting on the questions
related to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in the Agency File.
Reports
The state data are child-based where each report is associated with a single child. The report date
refers to the date when the agency was notified of the alleged maltreatment and the investigation start
date refers to the date when the agency made initial contact with the child or other family member.
In Wisconsin’s child protective services (CPS) system, several maltreatment reports for a single child
may be assessed in a single investigation.
There are a variety of reasons why a report might be screened out. In most cases, screened-out reports
are those reports where the information provided does not constitute maltreatment of a child or risk of
maltreatment of a child. Additionally, when multiple reports are made about the same maltreatment,
the subsequent reports may be screened out. In Wisconsin, CPS agencies are currently not required to
investigate instances of abuse by noncaregivers, so those reports may be screened out. In rare instances
cases may be screened out because there is not enough identifiable information to do an assessment.
Finally, cases may be screened out because jurisdiction more properly rests with another state.
Certain counties in Wisconsin have implemented alternative response (AR). Maltreatment disposition
for AR assessments result in identifying whether services are needed and will appear in NCANDS as
alternative response nonvictim dispositions.
Children
A child is considered to be a victim when an allegation is substantiated. The NCANDS unsubstanti-
ated maltreatment disposition includes instances where the allegation was unsubstantiated for that
child, or when critical sources of information cannot be found or accessed to determine whether
maltreatment as alleged occurred.
Fatalities
The count of fatalities includes only those children who were subjects of reports of abuse or neglect in
which the maltreatment allegation was substantiated. No agency other than Wisconsin Department of
Children and Families is involved in compiling child maltreatment fatality information; all fatalities
are reported in the Child File.

Wisconsin (continued)
Perpetrators
Perpetrators and perpetrator detail is included for allegations in which the child was substantiated.
The NCANDS category of “other” perpetrator relationship includes perpetrators who are not primary
or secondary caregivers to the child (i.e. noncaregivers) such as another child or peer to the child
victim or a stranger. As described above, there are no substantiations in AR cases, so the alleged
perpetrators in AR cases will not show up as substantiated perpetrators. Services, if needed, are
established through an assessment determination, not a determination about a specific perpetrator.
Services
The state continues to support data quality related to service documentation and ultimately to modify
the NCANDS file to incorporate services reporting for future data submissions.

Wyoming
Contact Lauri Lamm Phone 307–777–5536
Title Special Investigation Analyst Email lauri.lamm@wyo.gov
Address Social Services

Wyoming Department of Family Services
2300 Capital Avenue, Hathaway Building, 3rd Floor
Cheyenne, WY 82002
The state did not provide commentary in time for the release of the Child Maltreatment 2016 report.

Dhhsstats

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dhhsstats

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Child Maltreatment

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

Public Domain Notice

Questions and More Information

ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

Letter from the Associate Commissioner:

8.5 percent were sexually abused.

per 100,000 children in the national population.

Child Maltreatment 2016 Letter ii

Child Maltreatment 2016 Acknowledgements iii

Letter from the AssociAte commissioner ii

Child Maltreatment 2016 Contents iv

appendix a: Required CAPTA Data Items 94

appendix C: State Characteristics 112

appendix d: State Commentary 120

Child Maltreatment 2016 Contents v

Child Maltreatment 2016 Contents vi

Child Maltreatment 2016 Contents vii

What is the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System

What data are collected?

Where are the data available?

How many allegations of maltreatment were reported and received

Who reported child maltreatment?

Child Maltreatment 2016 Summary ix

Who were the child victims?

What were the most common types of maltreatment?

How many children died from abuse or neglect?

Child Maltreatment 2016 Summary x

Who received services?

Child Maltreatment 2016 Summary xi

4.1 million* REFERRALS

58.0% referrals SCREENED IN2

3.5 million CHILDREN* received

676,000 VICTIMS* 2,824,000 NONVICTIMS*3

388,130 VICTIMS 929,079 NONVICTIMS

143,866 VICTIMS 59,716 NONVICTIMS

Child Maltreatment 2016 Summary xii

Child Maltreatment 2016 chApter 1: Introduction 1

Future Reporting to NCANDS

Annual Data Collection Process

Child Maltreatment 2016 chApter 1: Introduction 2

■ Child Welfare Outcomes: Report to Congress—This annual report presents information on

Child Maltreatment 2016 chApter 1: Introduction 3

have a repeated substantiated or indicated report of maltreatment within six months.

Structure of the Report

■ Chapter 2, Reports—referrals and reports of child maltreatment

Child Maltreatment 2016 chApter 1: Introduction 4

administrative structures, levels of evidence, and data files collected

that may affect data

Child Maltreatment 2016 chApter 1: Introduction 5

■ did not concern child abuse and neglect

Child Maltreatment 2016 chApter 2: Reports 6

Investigations and Alternative Responses

Exhibit 2–B Report Disposition Rates, 2012–2016

Child Maltreatment 2016 chApter 2: Reports 7

Exhibit 2–C Report Sources, 2016

Child Maltreatment 2016 chApter 2: Reports 8

CPS Workforce and Caseload

Exhibit and Table Notes

Child Maltreatment 2016 chApter 2: Reports 9

Table 2–1 Screened-In and Screened-Out Referrals, 2016

Table 2–2 Average Response Time in Hours, 2012–2016

Table 2–3 Child Protective Services Workforce, 2016